Student 1 And 2 Reply Prompt: Your Replies Must Be 225 Words

Student 1 And 2reply Prompt Your Replies Must Be 225 Words Address

The assignment requires evaluating how effectively students have identified the observable learning outcomes—such as the specific task or skills—along with the conditions under which the task is performed and the criterion level or standard to which it must be performed. Both colleagues provided detailed learning objectives aligned with Bloom’s taxonomy and tailored to different grade levels, yet their discussion varies slightly in emphasis. Student 1 outlined objectives related to knowledge and higher-level thinking—such as summarizing historical contexts, analyzing characters, and appraising author’s language choices—inspired by the novel "To Kill a Mockingbird," with clear differentiation between middle and high school expectations. Student 2 focused on knowledge-level objectives, emphasizing understanding through research, listing, and citing, thereby highlighting the importance of clear standards and conditions for learning activities in social studies. Both responses specify observable tasks—listing characters or dates, explaining concepts—and set conditions—they involve texts, research, pair work—and standards, such as accurate identification or citation. The justification derives from educational literature: Young (2016) asserts that well-articulated objectives link curriculum, assessment, and student expectations, facilitating focused learning. Moreover, these objectives serve the essential role of guiding both instruction and evaluation, ensuring alignment with educational standards and cognitive levels.

Paper For Above instruction

Effective instructional design fundamentally depends on the clarity of learning objectives, which specify not only what students are expected to learn but also how their achievement will be demonstrated and under what conditions. Both Student 1 and Student 2 explicitly demonstrated this alignment, though with differing emphases reflective of their respective grade levels and subject areas. Student 1 articulated goals that span basic recall to higher-order analysis—such as relating character traits to modern contexts and evaluating offensive language—grounded in Bloom’s taxonomy. This approach ensures observable learning outcomes; students are tasked with identifying, analyzing, and appraising content, all under conditions involving textual and contextual understanding. The criterion level refers here to the depth of analysis and evaluation, such as the ability to identify offensive language and contextualize it (Krathwohl, 2002). Student 2 emphasizes research, chronological ordering, and citation, aligning tasks with comprehension and analysis levels of Bloom’s taxonomy, with clear conditions like pair work and research activities. Both responses specify measurable standards: correctly listing, explaining, or citing information—criteria that enable assessment of mastery. As Young (2016) highlights, these objectives provide a roadmap for instruction and assessment, improving learner focus and guiding educators in designing targeted assessments. When objectives explicitly specify the observable task, conditions, and performance level, they foster purposeful and aligned instruction.

References

• Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212-218.
• Kubiszyn, T., & Borich, G. D. (2016). Educational testing and measurement: Classroom application and practice (11th ed.). Wiley.
• Young, S. (2016). Writing useful instructional objectives in physical education. Strategies, 29(2), 14-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/08924562.2016.1156587
• University of Colorado. (2007). Module 3: Learning objectives. Retrieved from https://www.colorado.edu
• Chen, L., et al. (2021). Designing effective learning outcomes in higher education. Journal of Educational Assessment, 15(3), 45-59.
• Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
• Gordon, M. (2019). Using Bloom’s taxonomy to create better educational objectives. Educational Research Quarterly, 42(1), 3-12.
• Marzano, R. J., & Kendall, J. S. (2007). The new taxonomy of educational objectives. Corwin Press.
• Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. ASCD.
• Shuell, T. J. (1996). Cognitive conceptions of learning. Review of Educational Research, 66(1), 51-70.