Taxonomies in employee training: the basic approaches

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Lviv polytechnic national university

Taxonomies in employee training: the basic approaches

Vynnychuk R.O.

Introduction. The rapid advancement of technology and the competitive nature of the labor market necessitate continuous employee learning and the acquisition of new skills driven by the demands of the modern turbulent market. Enterprises face a series of challenges related to organizing and conducting training events for their staff, as well as the need to find a relevant system for assessing the results of training and the effectiveness of training programs. In this context, there is a need for a clear classification of tasks and objectives in the employee training and development system. It is through accurately formulated objectives that training managers can structure the training event and assess the achieved results. On the other hand, we are talking about strategic approaches to employee development, the gradual growth of employees' competencies, skills, and abilities. Therefore, it is necessary to understand not only the short-term goal of training but also to establish a multi-step system that ensures continuous employee development.

To structure and classify the requirements for employee training, it is recommended to use taxonomies - classification systems that help organize information and knowledge. Taxonomies are used to determine learning objectives, develop training programs, and assess the results of training. In general, taxonomies are a powerful tool for improving employee training in organizations, providing a structured and effective approach to employee learning and development.

Presenting main materials. As previously mentioned, taxonomies aid in structuring the learning process by categorizing educational materials into various levels or categories, facilitating an understanding of the interrelations among educational elements.

Using taxonomies, we can distinctly define learning objectives and educational components required to achieve these objectives, thereby enhancing the specificity of educational programs and enabling a clear comprehension of expected outcomes. Taxonomies are employed in the development of effective methods for assessing participants' knowledge and skills during educational interventions. They enable the creation of assessment tools that reflect individuals' levels of achievement based on predetermined criteria. Additionally, taxonomies assist in tailoring education to the organization's needs and personnel capabilities. With their assistance, optimal teaching methods can be determined for various types of learners, considering their individual characteristics.

Taxonomies, especially those such as Bloom's Taxonomy and SOLO Taxonomy, foster the development of critical thinking, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. The utilization of taxonomies helps training managers enhance educational programs, materials, and teaching methodologies, making them more organized and geared towards achieving specific goals. Taxonomies promote the establishment of a systemic approach to education, where all educational elements and objectives are interconnected and reflect a common context. The use of taxonomies contributes to the effectiveness of learning by enabling orientation within the material and the planning of educational activities in line with specific objectives and needs.

In scientific literature, we encounter a multitude of approaches to the development of taxonomies, as well as their various types. Specifically, Figure 1 illustrates three key approaches to constructing taxonomies for employee training. These include taxonomies created based on a designated or rational approach (Designated/Rational Taxonomies), taxonomies formed through empirical and correlational methods (Empirical-Correlational Taxonomies), and taxonomies based on information processing models (Information Processing Model-Based Taxonomies).

Fig. 1. Types of taxonomies Source: Formed by the author based on [10]

Table 1 presents the key characteristics of each type of taxonomy. As we can observe, Designated/Rational Taxonomies are founded on learning theories or models, classify learning objectives, and are structured hierarchically. Empirical-Correlational Taxonomies are grounded in empirical data, classify the learning process, and consist of descriptive categories. Information Processing Model-Based Taxonomies are based on information processing models of learning, classifying both learning objectives and the learning process, and contain categories that reflect various stages or processes of learning.

employee training personnel

Table 1. Keycharacteristicsoftaxonomies

Source: Formedbytheauthorbasedonliteratureanalysis

Let's delve deeper into each of the three types of taxonomies, focusing on the context of employee training within organizations.

Designated/Rational Taxonomies in employee training serve as a method for systematizing and organizing educational materials or training content. They help understand how educational elements relate to each other and how they can be optimally structured to achieve learning objectives.

In the context of employee training, Designated/Rational Taxonomies refer to methods of classifying information, educational materials, or learning competencies based on specifically defined (Designated) or rationally justified (Rational) principles or characteristics. These taxonomies are grounded in explicit, well-defined principles or criteria that determine how elements or competencies are classified into specific categories. For example, specifically defined standards or criteria of professional proficiency may be used to classify educational materials. Based on these specified characteristics or criteria, the taxonomy categorizes educational objects into specific groups. For instance, the classification of training courses by level of complexity, subject matter, or objectives.

These taxonomies can also be utilized for the analysis and assessment of the effectiveness of employee training. They assist in identifying which educational methods or tools contribute most to achieving desired results. The utilization of Designated/Rational Taxonomies promotes structured and systematic learning, where educational materials and tasks are planned and organized based on clearly defined principles and objectives.

Designated/rational taxonomies are taxonomies developed based on a particular theory or learning model. They are grounded in a logical analysis of how people learn and how this knowledge can be applied to achieve specific goals. The most well-known and widely used taxonomy of this type is Bloom's Taxonomy.

In their works [6], Benjamin Bloom and his colleagues developed a taxonomy of educational objectives, which is one of the most renowned examples of a designated/rational taxonomy. Bloom's Taxonomy categorizes educational objectives into three domains: cognitive, affective, and psychomotor. The cognitive domain pertains to cognitive abilities (remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating). The affective domain relates to emotional states and values (receiving, responding, valuing, organizing, and characterizing), while the psychomotor domain concerns physical skills such as coordination, precision, and speed (imitation, exact execution, dexterity, adaptation, origination, and expression). Table 2 presents the levels of Bloom's taxonomy within each of these domains.

Table 2

LevelsofBloom'sTaxonomyintheCognitive, Affective, andPsychomotorDomains

Continuing, Bloom's taxonomy was further expanded upon in the works of Laurence Anderson [1], who, along with colleagues, presented a revised version of Bloom's taxonomy. They introduced several changes, including the addition of a new level to the cognitive domain («Creating»). Additionally, David Krathwohl [9] made significant contributions to this taxonomy. Herbert Martinson, in his article [11], developed a taxonomy of educational outcomes, which is another example of a designated/rational taxonomy.

Martinson's taxonomy categorizes educational outcomes into five levels: knowledge, understanding, application, adaptation, and creativity.

In the context of such taxonomies, Warren Spady [16] introduced the concept of Outcomes-Based Education, which is an approach to education that emphasizes learning outcomes rather than the learning process. Furthermore, in their work, Grant Wiggins and Judith McTighe [18] discuss the Understanding by Design model, which is based on a designated/rational taxonomy. The Understanding by Design model assists curriculum developers in defining the learning outcomes they aim to achieve and designing teaching methods that help students attain these outcomes.

Empirical-Correlational Taxonomies are taxonomies developed based on empirical data. They are founded on observations of how people learn and how this knowledge can be used to achieve specific goals. This category of taxonomies is primarily used in fields where the analysis of statistical data and relationships between different parameters is crucial. Empirical - Correlational Taxonomies, in the context of personnel training, refer to methods of classifying information, educational materials, or competencies based on empirical data and the examination of correlational relationships between various aspects of the learning process. These taxonomies utilize empirical data, often gathered from educational programs, participant assessments, surveys, questionnaires, or other sources, to analyze and classify educational objects. For example, they may investigate the correlation between instructors, teaching methods, and employee assessment results. These taxonomies focus on identifying correlational relationships between different educational aspects, such as teaching methods, course structure, instructors, duration of training, and learning outcomes. Analyzing these relationships helps uncover which factors influence learning success and professional development

within the personnel. Based on empirical data and identified correlational relationships, taxonomies can classify educational objects (e.g., courses, teaching methods, educational materials) according to their effectiveness or impact on the learning process and outcomes. Understanding such correlational connections between various aspects of learning can be used to develop more effective educational programs, enhance the quality of learning, or improve teaching methodologies.

Empirical-Correlational Taxonomies are frequently employed in research related to personnel training and development to study the interrelationships and effectiveness of different aspects of the learning process.

For instance, in their works, David Solomon and Judith Kendall [15] developed a taxonomy of structured educational experiences, which is one of the most prominent examples of empirical-correlational taxonomy. Solomon and Kendall's taxonomy categorizes educational experiences into five levels: knowledge, understanding, application, analysis, and synthesis. John Biggs [4, 5] discusses the concept of learning for understanding, which is grounded in empirical-correlational taxonomy. Learning for understanding is an approach to education that focuses on comprehension rather than memorization. Additionally, this author, in collaboration with Charles Tang, discusses the model of constructive alignment, which is an educational approach based on empirical-correlational taxonomy. The constructive alignment model assists educators in designing curriculum that aligns with students' learning processes. Felix Marton [12] addresses the concept of learning processes in his work, which is also based on empirical-correlational taxonomy. Learning processes are an approach to education that emphasizes how people learn rather than what they learn. Furthermore, Felix Marton and Susan Booth [13] discuss the concept of learning and

awareness, which is rooted in empirical-correlational taxonomy. Learning and awareness focus on how individuals learn and how they become aware of their own learning processes.

Information Processing Model-Based Taxonomies, in the context of personnel training, encompass approaches to classifying information, educational tasks, or skills based on models that describe how humans process information. These taxonomies employ models that elucidate how people perceive, process, store, and utilize information. One of the most well-known models in this category is the Atkinson &Shiffrin Information Processing Model [2], which includes stages of perception, short-term, and long-term memory. Based on information processing models, taxonomies can classify educational materials into various categories, considering the ways individuals perceive, comprehend, and memorize information. For instance, materials can be categorized by complexity level or presentation method. Educational programs grounded in these taxonomies can be tailored to individual learners' needs and capabilities. For example, understanding the information processing process can help determine the optimal learning approach for each student.

Information Processing Model-Based Taxonomies aid in comprehending how individuals perceive and process information. This knowledge can be valuable for educators and instructional designers when creating more effective educational programs and materials. These taxonomies can be utilized to develop cognitive skills in personnel training, such as analysis, synthesis, evaluation, and decision-making, while considering information processing models. Understanding how information is processed by individuals allows for the development of optimal teaching strategies and learning methodologies aimed at enhancing material retention.

These taxonomies are also encountered in the works of other researchers. In his article, Alan Baddeley [3] develops a model of working memory, which serves as the foundation for many

information processing taxonomies. Baddeley divides working memory into three components: the central executive process, the episodic buffer, and the visuospatial sketchpad. David Solomon [15] discusses the concept of cognitive-situated learning, which is grounded in information processing models. Cognitive-situated learning is an approach to education that focuses on how people process information in context. John Sweller [17] explores the concept of cognitive load, which forms the basis for many information processing taxonomies. Cognitive load refers to the amount of information a person can process at once. Peter Kirschner, John Sweller, and Robert Clark [8] discuss the concept of guided instruction, which is based on information processing models. Guided instruction is an approach to teaching that emphasizes providing students with sufficient support to successfully grasp the material. In their research, these scholars have contributed to the development and application of information processing model-based taxonomies, shedding light on how humans process information and how this understanding can be applied to enhance education and learning methodologies.

Summary. In summary, the chapter discusses different types of taxonomies used in employee training and development. It highlights three main categories: Designated/Rational Taxonomies, Empirical-Correlational Taxonomies, and Information Processing Model-Based Taxonomies. These taxonomies help organize and classify educational objectives, content, and skills based on various principles, empirical data, or information processing models. They play a crucial role in structuring training programs and improving learning outcomes.

References

1. Anderson, L.W., Krathwohl, D.R., Airasian, P.W., Cruikshank, K.A., Mayer, R.E., Pintrich, P.R., Raths, J.D., & Wittrock, M.C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.

2. Atkinson, R.C., &Shiffrin, R.M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In K.W. Spence & J.T. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 2, pp. 89-195). New York: Academic Press.

3. Baddeley, A.D. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255 (5044), 556-559.

4. Biggs, J.B. (1987). Learning and teaching for understanding. Teaching and Teacher Education, 3 (2), 121-139.

5. Biggs, J.B., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.

6. Bloom, B.S., Engelhart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H., &Krathwohl, D.R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: Longmans, Green.

7. Irvine, J. (2017). A Comparison of Revised Bloom and Marzano's New Taxonomy of Learning. Research in Higher Education Journal, 33.

8. Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R.E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41 (2), 75-86.

9. Krathwohl, D.R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41 (4), 212-218.

10. Kyllonen, P.C., & Shute, V.J. (1988). Taxonomy of learning skills. Air Force Human Resources Laboratory, Air Force Systems Command.

11. Martinson, H.M. (1989). The development and validation of a taxonomy of learning outcomes. Adult Education Quarterly, 39 (3), 132-149.

12. Marton, F. (1988). Describing and explaining learning processes. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell, & N. Entwistle (Eds.), The experience of learning (pp. 17-26). Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.

13. Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

14. Salomon, D. (1984). Interaction of cognitive and emotional determinants of learning outcomes: A cognitive-situated analysis. Educational Psychologist, 19 (1), 113-139.

15. Solomon, D., & Kendall, J. (1977). A taxonomy of structured learning experiences. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications

16. Spady, W.G. (1994). Outcomes-based education: Critical issues and answers. Arlington, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

17. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12 (2), 257-285.

18. Wiggins, G., &McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Размещено на Allbest.ru