China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
The art of teaching in health care education
Published in Joseph A. Balogun, Health Care Education in Nigeria, 2020
The six levels of cognitive complexity proposed by Dr. Bloom are knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, evaluation. As academics try to construct optimal learning experiences, a newer version of Bloom’s taxonomy of learning was developed by Krathwohl in 2001. The revised version from fundamental to complex consists of remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating (Figure 2.1).
The long conversation
Published in Anthony Korner, Communicative Exchange, Psychotherapy and the Resonant Self, 2020
People vary in their capacity to use imagination. Occupations don’t always foster such abilities. Individual language use in many fields and often in the public domain, can often be characterized as formal or analytic. Some people have strengths in these areas, without having developed a narrative style of language use. Formal thinking may relate to concerns with status and power, while the analytic style is associated with cognitive complexity, distanced from emotion (Pennebaker, 2011). Analytic thinkers “work to understand their world” (ibid.). On the other hand, people with a narrative style of thinking are good storytellers, able to relate to others in ways conveying immediacy, evocative of emotion (ibid.). The development of narrative is necessary to growth of self, although there is a need to engage, at the level of the individual’s linguistic style, for this to occur. Therapy which succeeds in fostering the growth of self, enhances the sense of aspiration towards a future. What hasn’t been part of past experience can’t be subject to analysis. Rather new stories need to evolve, and be elaborated in relational space in order to contain the tension between what was, what is and what will be. The “resistance of narcissism” may reflect the need to resist domination by the other and be one’s self.
Constructing multiple-choice items
Published in Claudio Violato, Assessing Competence in Medicine and Other Health Professions, 2018
The testing of simple recall has too frequently characterized the multiple-choice item format. This situation has been mistakenly attributed to some inherent weakness in the format itself, but this is not true. The multiple-choice format offers ample opportunity to construct items that are more complex than simple recall. Nevertheless, there are many situations where assessing the candidate’s mastery of factual knowledge is a perfectly appropriate task (i.e., definition of a medical term). Criticism is warranted when a simple recall test item is used for material that should be assessed at the comprehension, application, and/or even analysis level. Therefore, an important step to constructing a test item is to consider the learning objective underlying the learning of the material. In doing so, the level of cognitive complexity that the item should reflect can be determined.
Re-introducing Cognitive Complexity: A Meta-analysis and Agenda for Future Research
Published in Human Performance, 2020
Haley M. Woznyj, George C. Banks, Alexandra M. Dunn, Gregory Berka, David Woehr
Although once one of the most widely studied cognitive variables in the 1990s and early 2000s (Woehr et al., 1998), research on cognitive complexity has stagnated in recent years, dropping off after 2010. Cognitive complexity is, theoretically, an important construct that reflects how individuals structure and process information in their environment (Goodwin & Ziegler, 1998; Kelly, 1955). The current study represents the most comprehensive effort to summarize the decades of literature on cognitive complexity. Such an effort is necessary given the conceptual and measurement issues present in the literature. It also helps to shed light on why research has stagnated while offering suggestions to reenergize research on the topic.
Developmental Contributions to Emotional Awareness
Published in Journal of Personality Assessment, 2019
Ryan Smith, Donald Quinlan, Gary E. Schwartz, Anna Sanova, Anna Alkozei, Richard D. Lane
The third trait-like dimension that likely contributes to LEAS scores is a person's cognitive complexity in describing feelings. Cognitive complexity, in the sense we intend, refers to the number of distinct concepts that a person has acquired (and uses) within a given content-specific domain. This type of complexity is related to the notion of expertise, in that experts in a given domain will often make more finely grained conceptual distinctions than novices do in that domain. For example, a bird expert will possess concepts for, and thus be capable of perceptually identifying, many different specific species of birds, whereas a novice would be capable of identifying considerably fewer. Similarly, in the domain of feelings, a novice might only be able to identify good versus bad feelings, whereas an expert would be capable of distinguishing among several different good (e.g., happiness, excitement, joy, contentment, peacefulness) and bad (e.g., anger, fear, shame, guilt, contempt) feelings. A person with more feeling-related concepts would therefore have greater feeling-related cognitive complexity; that is, they would be more of an expert in the feelings domain. According to current theories of emotion concept learning, this expertise plausibly depends on repeated exposure to others (e.g., one's parents during childhood) who model appropriate use of fine-grained and culturally specific emotion concept terms (Barrett, 2017). As LEAS score differences between Levels 2 and 5 are (in part) based on the conceptual specificity of the emotion terms one uses, it is fairly clear why higher scores would also act as an index for this third dimension.2It should be highlighted, however, that a person could, in principle, have higher or lower conceptual complexity even within Level 1 (e.g., making more or less specific conceptual distinctions about bodily feelings that are not explicitly affective), but this would not directly affect LEAS score. On the other hand, one might predict that greater complexity at one level would tend to correlate with greater complexity at another. In support of this possibility, an ecological momentary assessment study demonstrated that higher LEAS scores are in fact associated with greater differentiation in the ratings of somatic symptoms (i.e., lower somatization, r = –.38; Lane, Carmichael, & Reis, 2011).