Seven all-embracing frameworks			271
Domains addressed:		Presentation:		Contexts:
•	cognitive	•	academic	•	education
•	conative			•	work
•	affective			•	citizenship
•	psychomotor			•	recreation
•	social
Broad categories		Theory base:		Pedagogical stance:
covered:		•	eclectic, including	•	constructivist
•	self-regulation		educational psychology	•	the sociocultural
•	reflective thinking		(e.g. Gagne´)		and situated nature of
•	productive thinking	•	cognitive psychology		thought and knowledge
•	building understanding		and instructional design		are recognised
•	information-gathering		(e.g. Merrill)
Classification by:		Values:		Practical illustrations
•	types of knowledge	•	learner autonomy	for teachers:
•	features of thinking	•	higher-order thinking	•	not worked out
•	types of disposition

Hauenstein’s conceptual framework for educational objectives

Description and intended use

It was in 1972 that Hauenstein first published an integrated taxonomical framework in which he accommodated the cognitive, affective and psychomotor domains (Hauenstein, 1972). His 1998 book sets out a revised version of the original, based on the idea that teachers should not lose sight of the whole person as a learner, since ‘We are what we believe, what we think, and most of all, what we do’ (Hauenstein, 1998, p. 125). He identifies the long-term aims of education as being to produce knowledgable, acculturated and competent individuals. Arguing that the development of feelings, values and beliefs is just as important as gaining knowledge, and critical of the devaluing of practical skills in favour of the academic, Hauenstein points out that all learning involves feeling and doing as well as thinking. He advocates experiential learning and hopes that the use of his framework by teachers will enable students ‘to develop their critical, reflective and problem-solving abilities and skills’ in all three domains (1998, p. 29). More specifically, his objectives are that ‘teachers and curriculum planners will have a

272 Frameworks for Thinking

better understanding of the learning process, be able to classify their objectives accurately, be more cognizant of student learning levels, and be better equipped to provide appropriate interconnected subject matter, objectives and lessons for their students.’ (1998, p. xii).

Hauenstein offers three hierarchical taxonomies as well as one in which all three are integrated. The main organising principle is that of a learning hierarchy in which lower-order processes are prerequisites for higher-order processes. He claims that his taxonomies are comprehensive, with mutually-exclusive categories and he seeks to use terms which ‘communicate the intent of the objectives to teachers in the field’. All categories include sub-categories, ordered according to the same principle which applies between levels in the hierarchy.

The composite Behavioural Domain taxonomy has five levels, defined (in brief ) in the following way:

1.Acquisition – Ability to receive, perceive and conceptualise a concept, idea, or phenomenon in a specific context.

2.Assimilation – Ability to comprehend and make appropriate responses in a situation. Ability to transfer and transform concepts, ideas and perceptions to a similar situation.

3.Adaptation – Ability to modify knowledge, skills and dispositions which conform to ascribed qualities, criteria and standards. Ability to demonstrate intellectual and physical abilities and skills with desired qualities and characteristics to do a task or solve a problem in practical or simulated contexts and exhibit a preference for certain values.

4.Performance – Ability to evaluate situations and be productive. Includes the act of analysing, qualifying, evaluating and integrating knowledge, values and beliefs to act in accord with the situation.

5.Aspiration – Ability to synthesise knowledge and seek to master skills and demonstrate these in behaviour. Students can synthesise, hypothesise and resolve complex problems, and seek to originate and perfect their abilities and skills.

(based on Hauenstein, 1998, pp. 116–119)

In table 6.5 the complete framework is set out in abbreviated form, with a distinction being made in all cases between short-term (achievable within a single lesson) and longer-term objectives. It is important

Seven all-embracing frameworks	273

Table 6.5. Hauenstein’s abbreviated taxonomy of educational objectives

Behavioural			Cognitive		Affective		Psychomotor
Domain			Domain		Domain		Domain
Short-Term Objectives
1	Acquisition		Conceptualisation		Receiving		Perception
	•	Receiving	•	Identification	•	Awareness	•	Sensation
	•	Perception	•	Definition	•	Willingness	•	Recognition
	•	Conceptuali-	•	Generalisation	•	Attentiveness	•	Observation
		sation					•	Predisposition
2 Assimilation			Comprehension		Responding		Simulation
	•	Responding	•	Translation	•	Acquiescing	•	Activation
	•	Compre-	•	Interpretation	•	Complying	•	Imitation
		hension	•	Extrapolation	•	Assessing	•	Coordination
	•	Simulation
3	Adaptation		Application		Valuing		Conformation
	•	Valuing	•	Clarification	•	Accepting	•	Integration
	•	Application	•	Solution	•	Preferring	•	Standardisation
	• Conformation				• Confirming
Long-Term Objectives
4	Performance		Evaluation		Believing		Production
	•	Believing	•	Analysis	•	Trusting	•	Maintenance
	•	Evaluation	• Qualification		•	Committing	• Accommodation
	•	Production
5	Aspiration		Synthesis		Behaving		Mastery
	•	Behaving	•	Hypothesis	•	Demonstrating	•	Origination
	•	Synthesis	•	Resolution	•	Modifying	•	Perfection
	•	Mastery

(based on Hauenstein, 1998, p. 124)

to note that the Behavioural Domain is not an additional domain, but a composite in which there are only 15 sub-categories, in place of a total of 63 in the cognitive, affective and psychomotor domains.

Hauenstein’s treatment of both the affective domain and the behavioural composite closely resembles Krathwohl, Bloom and Masia’s (1964) classification of educational goals in the affective domain.

274 Frameworks for Thinking

There is also a family resemblance between Hauenstein’s cognitive domain taxonomy and the pioneering work of Bloom and his team (1956). We shall now compare and contrast these two cognitive domain taxonomies.

At Level 1 Bloom and Hauenstein both include the process of remembering (recall and recognition). Hauenstein calls Level 1 Conceptualisation, which has the sub-categories of ‘Identification’, ‘Definition’ and ‘Generalisation’ (by which he means the ability to explain a term or outline a process). At Level 2 (Comprehension) the sub-categories in the two taxonomies are identical and at Level 3 (Application) the only difference is that Hauenstein has two sub-categories, Clarification and Solution of problems. Despite the fact that Conceptualisation includes some processes (such as explaining) which Bloom may have seen as demonstrating comprehension, the two taxonomies are very similar at this level of ‘short-term objectives’.

Hauenstein claims that his treatment of ‘long-term objectives’ provides a better account of critical thinking, reflective thinking, problemsolving and decision-making than Bloom’s ‘higher-order’ categories analysis, synthesis and evaluation. Hauenstein uses only two categories, Evaluation and Synthesis, each with two sub-categories. He sees ‘Analysis’ as a necessary part of Evaluation, preceding measurement against a criterion or standard (which he calls ‘Qualification’). Synthesis follows Evaluation and is defined as ‘ability to hypothesise and resolve complex problems which yield new arrangements and answers’ (Hauenstein, 1998, p. 49). Synthesis is seen as the highest level of thought, as it can include creative, innovative thinking. Hauenstein differs from Bloom in placing Evaluation below Synthesis and in treating ‘Analysis’ as only a sub-category.

Evaluation

Hauenstein’s conceptual framework is a worthy attempt to fulfil Bloom’s original vision of an all-encompassing system for classifying educational goals (Bloom, 1956). The Behavioural Domain framework provides a simple and useful general tool for understanding learning, while the Cognitive Domain framework is similarly useful for understanding thinking. In both Hauenstein places as much if not more emphasis on psychological processes as on educational goals.

Seven all-embracing frameworks	275

As with Bloom’s taxonomy, Hauenstein’s work provides a heuristic framework rather than a theory. However, it is compatible with Piagetian theory (Piaget, 1952) and focuses attention on the learning process and on the long-term acquisition of valued dispositions. It covers all domains of human experience and performs a useful function in drawing attention to the importance of practical abilities through its treatment of the psychomotor domain and of the cognitive domain category Application.

Within the cognitive domain the terminology and definitions used are clear and accessible, with four of the categories being the same as those used by Bloom. Within the composite Behavioural Domain, the meanings of the terms ‘simulation’ and ‘conformation’ are unclear unless reference is made to the definitions and examples provided.

Hauenstein’s claim for comprehensiveness seems a reasonable one, especially as he includes affective and psychomotor processes and makes frequent references to will, self-discipline and effort. However, his claim for mutually-exclusive categories can be challenged, as overlaps can be found. For example, within the cognitive domain, conceptualisation and comprehension may at times be hard to distinguish, as may be the problem-solving involved in Application and Synthesis, while varying degrees of analysis may be involved in lower-order processes than Evaluation. Overlaps within the affective and composite behavioural domains are even more likely to occur, as public access to feelings, beliefs and dispositions is more problematical than in the case of knowledge and understanding.

There appear to be two principles for organising all domains in Hauenstein’s framework: a hierarchy based on skill and performance prerequisites and the progressive internalisation that takes place through learning. However, he does not provide many examples to illustrate how consistently those principles operate and it is where he combines categories from three domains to create the Behavioural Domain that their applicability is hardest to test. The first principle can be questioned as it does not always seem necessary for knowledge to be applied before evaluation takes place (e.g. the evaluation of a truth claim). The separation of Analysis and Synthesis is also problematical, since these processes are always complementary, both requiring awareness of part–whole relationships. So far as internalisation is concerned,

276 Frameworks for Thinking

this principle is perhaps more applicable in the affective and psychomotor domains than in the cognitive domain. Complex concepts may require as much if not more internalisation than the procedures used in evaluation, and creative synthesis may become less, not more, likely if knowledge is internalised to the extent that its use becomes too rigid or predictable. It is certainly true that critical thinking and reflective thinking are facilitated by internalised dispositions, but the same can be said of Level 1 processes such as definition (where a disposition for cognitive clarity is very helpful).

Hauenstein believes that: ‘individuals construct their own knowledge from their experience; individuals learn as whole persons; subject matter from various disciplines is interconnected, and that curriculum and instruction should be student-centered’ (Hauenstein, 1998, p. ix). The holistic experiential-learning approach is clear, although the emphasis is on individual much more than social and societal development. Throughout the book there is frequent allusion to the value of accepting and conforming to the ideas and values of more experienced adults, with the model of an ideal student being encapsulated in the following descriptors: ‘hard-working, clean, well groomed, athletic, healthy, moral, ethical, patriotic, law-abiding, a lady, a gentleman’ (1998, p. 79).

It is not clear that Hauenstein has provided a better account of higher-order thinking (including critical and creative thinking) than Bloom. Both approaches are open to the criticism that evaluation (judgment of worth based on the application of standards or criteria) can be holistic and intuitive and does not necessarily depend on analysis. Indeed, evaluation can be seen as a metacognitive monitoring component operating at all phases and levels of thought. Bloom’s argument that, although evaluation is not necessarily the last step in thinking or problem-solving, it requires to some extent all the other categories of behaviour, has some force (since the processes and products of synthesis and creative thinking are also evaluated). Both Bloom and Hauenstein link evaluation closely with the affective processes of valuing, liking and enjoying.

Although this framework has a welcome conceptual neatness and simplicity and makes a useful distinction between shortand long-term objectives, it is not fully worked out for classroom use, as it does not

Seven all-embracing frameworks	277

relate processes to curriculum content through a range of examples and vignettes. Hauenstein has four knowledge categories (symbolic, prescriptive, descriptive and technological), so a 5 4 matrix with four types of knowledge for each cognitive process could be easily constructed, as Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) have done.

Hauenstein does not explicitly take account of metacognition in his book, but his framework is broad enough to accommodate this. It is a strong contender for use in schools and in further and higher education, especially if taken as a flexible starting point for planning courses and systems of assessment where the development of personal qualities and practical skills are just as important as cognitive performance.

Summary: Hauenstein

				Relevance for teachers
Purpose and structure		Some key features		and learning
Main purpose(s):		Terminology:		Intended audience:
•	to improve	•	not always	•	curriculum planners
	instructional design		transparent		teachers
•	to help teachers be
	more aware of
	learning levels
Domains addressed:		Presentation:		Contexts:
•	cognitive	•	logical and	•	education
•	conative		well structured
•	affective	•	rather abstract, with
•	psychomotor		few concrete
•	social		examples
Broad categories		Theory base:		Pedagogical stance:
covered:		•	draws heavily on	•	objectives-driven
•	self-regulation		taxonomies by Bloom	•	emphasises
•	reflective thinking		and others		cross-curricular links
•	productive thinking	•	uses Piagetian ideas of	•	student-centred and
•	building understanding		assimilation and		holistic
•	information-gathering		adaptation	•	experiential learning
		•	knowledge is
			constructed