Prior Learning Assessment Corner: Using Bloom's Taxonomy to Help Define College-Level Knowledge

A chief characteristic of adult students' orientation to­ ward learning is a practical desire to avoid wasting time, money, or effort by participating in classroom courses to earn credit for things they already know. Many postsecondary institutions now recognize the validity of adults' non-classroom learning by granting credit through a variety of methods , including Assessment of Prior Learning (APL) portfolios. APL portfolio formats differ among the various in­ stitutions that offer this type of assessment , but all require the student to demonstrate the college-level knowledge, grounded in theory, that justifies an award of college credit. Sorting out and defining what components of their own learning actually constitute college-level knowledge is one of the knottiest prob­ lems that my portfolio students face. I suspect that many times we practitioners and facilitators of portfolio evaluation are at a loss to express clearly what we mean by "college-level knowl­ edge. " Sometimes, it's a case of "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it. " How, then, can we convey our understand­ ing to students who are stmggling to describe and document their learning at this level? For most of us , the CAEL guidelines (CAEL, 1975) con­ sliMe the standard description. College-level knowledge is: • demonstrable and measurable • consistent with levels of learning of students in compa­ rable classroom courses • applicable across contexts • composed of a conceptual or theoretical component as well as a subject matter knowledge base • understood by the student to be related to the student's college degree or learning goals. These guidelines are useful for experienced practitioners in higher education, but aren't easily grasped by sntdents who lack extensive college experience. We need to help our port­ folio students construct a mental model of college-level learn­ ing against which to measure and evaluate their own knowl­ edge. Research indicates that successful performance in many fields is based on knowing facts and procedures (factual or domain knowledge) and on knowing strategies and skills (procedural knowledge) for applying that knowledge in real­ life situations (Chi, Glaser, & Farr, 1988) . Research also indi­ cates that a significant portion of procedural knowledge may be implicit, that is, embedded in the context or routine in which it is learned, and not always available for conscious examination. Factual subject matter knowledge alone often fails to provide adequate information about how actually to go about solving problems or to put knowledge of the do­ main to work. Even students who are academically successful may grasp factual knowledge but find that application eludes them (Sternberg, Okagaki , & Jackson, 1 990) : their knowl­ edge doesn't go beyond the level of comprehension. For many experienced adult learners, the situation is re­ versed. These students may find that their ability to link do­ main knowledge with practical application involves strategies and skills that have remained tacit or unconscious because they were acquired through the experience of solving prob­ lems in actual practice. While these adult students can easily describe what it is that they do, they frequently find it difficult to put into words the theoretical knowledge that enables them to translate their grasp of specific facts into skilled workplace