an integrative analysis of benjamin bloom`s cognitive domain and

Journal of Business & Leadership (2005-2012)
Volume 3
Number 1 Journal of Business & Leadership
Article 14
1-1-2007
AN INTEGRATIVE ANALYSIS OF BENJAMIN
BLOOM'S COGNITIVE DOMAIN AND
BRUCE TUCKMAN'S DEVELOPMENTAL
MODEL
Reginald Bell
Prairie View A&M University
Wally Guyot
Fort Hays State University
Philip Martin
Fort Hays State University
Robert Meier
Fort Hays State University
Follow this and additional works at: http://scholars.fhsu.edu/jbl
Recommended Citation
Bell, Reginald; Guyot, Wally; Martin, Philip; and Meier, Robert (2007) "AN INTEGRATIVE ANALYSIS OF BENJAMIN BLOOM'S
COGNITIVE DOMAIN AND BRUCE TUCKMAN'S DEVELOPMENTAL MODEL," Journal of Business & Leadership
(2005-2012): Vol. 3: No. 1, Article 14.
Available at: http://scholars.fhsu.edu/jbl/vol3/iss1/14
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FHSU Scholars Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Business &
Leadership (2005-2012) by an authorized administrator of FHSU Scholars Repository.
Bell et al.: AN INTEGRATIVE ANALYSIS OF BENJAMIN BLOOM'S
COGNITIVE
DOMAIN
J o urn~l o r 13usin
css and Lea dership
: ReseaAND
rch. Practi ce. and Teaching
lld l. Gu yo l. M:tn in . anu Me ier
2007. Vol. 3. No. I . 11 6- 124
AN INTEGRATIVE ANALYSIS OF BENJAMIN BLOOM'S COGNITIVE DOMAIN AND BRUCE
TUCKMAN'S DEVELOPMENTAL MODEL
Reg in a ld Be ll , Prairi e Vi ew A & M Univers ity
Wa ll y Guyot, Fort Hays State University
Phi li p Martin, Fort Hays State University
Robert Meier, Fo r1 Hays State Uni vers ity
Tlte purpose of th e stu f(r was t wo-fold: (I) Do small group sellings benefit students'! (2) /-low can profes.w rs enltance
tlte group enl'ironment lf1rouglt ta.\·k relmed instru ctions? A 33-item Group Leaming 011 Development Survey (GOLDS)
was used to integrme Bruce Tu ck man 's developm ental model wit/1 Benjamin Bloom's cognitive domain. Nanning and
Performing variables (Factor I) contributed 3 I percent to tlt e total scale variance; jiatlt ermore, knowledge,
comprelt en\·ion, U/1{/ applicmion task variables loaded 011 Factor 2, for 9 percent of tlt e total scale variance. Significant
p < .05 differen ce~· •verej(mnd. Empirical evidence su.ro~esred a Dynamic Group Leaming !Hodel (DGLM) be created to
lt elp explain th e g roup lea ming on de velopm ent constru ct.
I NTRODUCTION
L en rnin g is a co nstru ct inferred from observed behav ior
(Ke rli nger, 1973) . Th e cogniti ve do main (B loom , Engl ehart,
Furst, Hil l. & Krar hwo hl , 19 56) in clud es objec ti ves related to
r·eca ll of knowl edge and deve lop ment of hi gher cognit ive
abi l ities. T he cognitive domain contai ns six subdi v ision s
(k now ledge, comp rehension , app l icat ion, analys is, synth es is,
and eva lu ation ) represe ntat ive o f a hi erarchy of mental
abi l iti es; it is perf'ec tl y suitabl e as a meas urable co nstr·uct. In
thi s stu dy, six subd iv isions of B loo m 's cogniti ve do main were
meas ured aga in st th e fi ve stages of group deve lopment
(Tuckman & Jensen, 1977) . Res pon ses from th e 33 -itern G r·o up
Lea rnin g on Deve lopment Surve y (GOLD S) were tes ted using
multivari ate stati sti cal co ntro ls and meth ods. T uckrn an's
( 1965) model of small-g roup de ve lo pmental processes
o rgani;:ed ex ist in g research int o a co ncep tu al frarn eworl-. .
Th e l iter·ature co uld not be co nsid ered trul y represe ntative
o f small-group deve lopm ental process es beca use th ere was an
ove rrep r·ese nt at ion of th erap y and T-group se ttin gs and an
unde r represe ntat ion o r natur·al m labo ratc ry -gro up se ttin gs,
mal--in g ge neral iLin g diffi cull. li e suggested th e need lo r furth er
rese arch on narural and labora tory gm ups. in di ca ted th e need
for more ri go rou s meth odo logical co nsiderati ons in srud y ing
group proce ss. and cr it icize d th e use of a sin g le group for
obsc r\'a ti o n becau se
it
made co ntro l and S) stcmat ic
ma ni pu lati o n
or
in depend ent
va ri ab les
imposs ib le.
Ad diti onall ), gro up mem bers mi ght possess unanti c ipated
inter ve nin g va ri abl es th at co uld be prob lemati c for a group 's
deve lop menta l processes.
An inter ve nin g variab le is an '' in-t he- head" va ri ab le. It
ca nn ot be see n, heard , or felt. It is inferred fro rr. behav ior.
·' ll os tilit y" is infe rred from pres um abl y hosti le or aggres sive
ac ts. " Learnin g" is i nferred from , among oth er thi ngs. in creases
in tes t sco res . " !\ nx iet y" is in fer red from skin respo nses , from
hea rtb at, and so on. D esigning a ca use-effec t sing le small
group ex perim ent that accou nt s for all o f th e trul y mean in g ful
and important intervenin g va ri ab les (w hil e co ntrolling fo r
intern al and e:-- terna l va l idit y fa ctors) is imposs ibl e. Tuckman
Published by FHSU Scholars Repository, 2007
( 1965, p. 386) assert s "Certain ly durati on o f g roup li fe wou ld
be ex pec ted to in nuence am ount and rate of deve lop ment. .
ettin g-spec ifi c diffe rence s and wi thin -settin g differences may
affec t tempora l change as rega rds th e spec ifi c co ntent of th e
stages in develop mental sequ ence, th e rate o f progre ss ion
throu gh th e se q uence, or th e ord er of th e sequ ence itse lf "
Soc ial ~~.- 1e nti s t s engag in g in small gro up studie s are
so meti mes perp lexed beca use th eir result s ca n often appear
spuriou s: coun ter argum ents posed by oth ers mi ght be used to
exp lain awa y resea rch findin gs . A few small group studi es
w here subjects' behavio rs were recorded and rated by two or
more rat ers st il l show problems th at make it difficult to
ge nerali ze res ults, even wh en int er-rater reli abilit y is controll ed
(Art zt & Arm o ur-Thomas, 1990 , 1992; B loo m, 1975) .
A s a co nceptu al framc wmk, th e deve lo pmental mode l
(Tuckma n and Jense n, 19 77 ) is potent enough to be co nstru ed
as a meas urab le co nstru ct in assertin g th at sm a II group
proce sses res ult in deve lop ment al stages. B loo m ' s cognitive
domain is ubiquitous to educa ri on , makin g it perfectl y suitabl e
as a mea surab le co nstru ct. IJi oo rn et al. as serted "e lem ents" of
lo wer leve l int ell ec tua l abi liti es co mbi ne to fo rm hi gher leve l
ment al ab iliti es and thu s " c lass ifi ed " leve ls int o hi erarchi ca l
Cil tcgo ri cs .
Other fa cto rs may affec t th e lea rnin g proce ss. K erlin ger
( 19 73 ) rel'e rred to lea r·nin g as an int er ve nin g or " in -th e- head"
va ri abl e. Tu ck m an ( 1965) referred to th e inter ve ni ng vari ab le
" hostilir y" as an element of th e "S tormin g" sta ge in group
deve lop ment. We asse r1 hostilit y ca n occ ur in groups as
mu lti ple interve ning va ri ab les beca use more th an one group
member co uld be in possess ion o f thi s " in-the-h ead" vari able at
one tirn e. Mo reover, hos tilit y is not always m anifes ted by
out wa rd aggress ive ac ti ons. Passi ve ly aggress ive attitud es ca n
also occur . Gro up members expe ri encing such behav io r mi ght
harb or sa li ent emoti onal mem o ri es affec tin g th eir parti cipati on
in ex ist ing and future groups. Ca use-e ffec t sc ientifi c studi es of
small group lea rnin g on sta ges of deve lopm ent are prob lemati c
in oth er wa ys.
Cogniti ve ab ilit y
is co rrelated with
srn all group
deve lop ment. L earnin g mi ght large ly be depend ent on how th e
11 6
1
Bd l. Guyot. Martin. and M~ier
Journal of Business & Leadership (2005-2012),Journa
Vol. l3or[2007],
Art. 14P
Bu s m ~ssNo.
and1,
Lcaclcrsi"
R~ s ~a rc h . Prac ll c ~ .
and Teac l11 ng
2007. Vol 3. No I .
group form s and o n th e amo unt o f tim e it remain s and wo rks
together. Tempo ral compl exi ti es ass oc iated w ith scie ntifi c
studies of a sin g le small g ro up 's deve lo pmental processes
preclud e many trea tm ent group des ig ns; ye t, th ey do not
preclude usin g stati sti ca l contro ls ( fac tor analys is, effec t size,
large samples, MAN CO VA , etc.) in p lace o f ex perim ental
controls. Knowl edge about small gro ups is l ike ly to be better
understood by determining th e latent nature of simultan eo usly
occurring " in-the-h ead" variables assoc iated w ith a gro up 's
developmental processes by sa mplin g popul ati ons of
indi v iduals with hi stori es of small group panicipation. Stud ents
may deve lop precepts of th eir tru e ex peri ences lo ng after any
panicular small group has adjourned. Tu ck man ( 1965)
con tended duration of group l ife wo uld be ex pected as a
var iab le o f influence on th e rate of deve lop ment. Therefore.
duration and rate ass ociated w ith small group deve lop ment are
important wh en des ignin g a sc ientifi c group stud y.
T y picall y , stud ent gro up s do not rese mb le wo rkpla ce and
laboratory groups. B usin ess pro fesso rs usin g peer- lea rnin g
strategies stri ve to prepa re student s fo r real-wo rl d group
successes. G ro up wo rk shoul d be a ski ll a stud ent ca n transfer
to industry; however, it is not known to w hat ex tent cogniti ve
abiliti es co rrelate with group de' elopm cnt. T he research
questi on w as appa rent : at w hat leve l of learnin g do stud ents
perceive th at a group begi ns to norm and pcrlo rm necessa ry
ta sks to acco mpli sh it s co mmu na l goal(s)? Thi s un answe red
ques ti on poses a prob lem for ed ucato rs usin g peer lea rnin g
method s.
Problem
Th e probl em face d by bu sin es s ed uca tors is two-fo ld: ( I )
how do pro fessors kn ow i f stud ents be nefit from th eir gro up
int eraction s? M any professo rs fin d it i difficu lt to as sess th e
group learnin g enviro nment. A ss umin g stu de nt s progress
temporall y thro ugh th e fi ve stages of deve lop ment , w hat
lea rnin g occ urs and at what cognitive leve ls? A nd (2) ca n
professo rs acco mmodate lea rnin g by offer in g groups taskrelated in stru cti o ns benefici al to a broad range of ab ili ty
differences, co mparab le to one- to-o ne tut o ri als (B loo m, 1984 ;
L arso n et al. , 1984 )?
T eachers make jud gment s on w hat gr·o ups sho uld
acco mpli sh based o n suppl ementa l materi als, empiri cal
resea rch papers. and books read . M c K eac hi c. C hi sm. Me nges.
Svi ni ck i. and W ein stein ( 199-1 ) o iler a defi niti on o f pee r
lea rnin g as fo ll ow s: " W e shall use th e term " peer lea rnin g" to
in clude both '·co ll abora t ive" and ·'coo perati ve " lea rnin g.
Co ll abo rati ve
and
coop erati ve
len rn i ng
in vo lve
interd epe11dence o f group mcrn ber·s in wor-king tow<Hd s a
co mm on goa l" ( 143) . In thi s stud y, th e deliniti on of srmll
groups shall hence forth ad opt th e McK eac hi e et al . ( 1994)
definiti on o f pee r len rnin g. G ro ups nss ig ned at rand om work
better th an impose d lea rnin g stru ctures (S iava n, 1985)
G roups should be ass igned a wide array o f peer lea rnin g
ac ti v iti es to cultivate mutual suppo rt and to stimul ate lea rnin g
(Nea l & Ec htern acht , 1995) . Seve ral authors repo rted th e
positi ve impact lea rnin g gro ups have on moti va ti on,
interpersonal relati o nships, and attitud es toward lea rnin g
http://scholars.fhsu.edu/jbl/vol3/iss1/14
11 6-124
( La zarow it z & Ka rsenty. 1990 ; Slav in . 1985 ; Sharan &
haul ov . 1990) . Sin ce Tuckman ass ert ed th e use o f a sing le
group fo r o bse r va ti o n mak es co ntro l and sys temati c
manipul ati on of ind epe ndent va ri ab les imposs ibl e, a good wa y
to meas ure th e influence o f small group learnin g on
deve lopm ent is to assess th e percepti ons of bu siness stud ents
who part ic ipated in group lea rnin g activiti es. W e rev iewed a
number o f scholarl y arti c les across a broad range of lea rnin g
env ironm ent s th at guid ed our research ques ti o n.
Related Literature
Coo perati ve lea rnin g stud ies span at least four decad es.
W ebb and G ri b ( 1967) in ves ti gated th e effec ti veness of small
stud ent - led di scuss ion groups as a meth od of in stru cti on. When
achi eve ment was th e crit eri on of efficacy , th e res ults o f th e
compara t ive findin gs we re favo rab le to both students and
teachers. Simil arl y , So lo mon ( 1990) found relationshi ps
betwee n stu de nts' coo perati ve lea rnin g ex per iences and th eir
alti tu de s towa rd sc hoo l . In th at stud y, stud ents in all c lasses had
at least some ex peri ence w ith small group learn ing and th at th e
effe cts o f coo perati ve learnin g on stu dents' acade m ic and soc ial
de ve lopment we re a fun cti on of th e quality o f th e group
inter·acti on. M o r·eovcr, ll ea ley and Ma11hews ( 1996 ) asse rt
coo pera t ive lea rnin g in small gro ups prod uced hi gher
ac hi eve m ent ; coo perative lea rnin g enab led deve lopm ent of
more po siti ve r·e lati onships amo ng stud ent s and hea lthi er
psyc ho log ica l adju stm ent to th e soc ial se ttin g th an did
co mpet iti ve or individua li st ic expe ri ences .
ll ause rrn an ( 1992) report s o n coope rati ve learni ng method s
pert ainin g to labo ratory and fie ld-base d studi es of coo perati ve
lea rn in g. Th e stud y emph asized fi elu-t es ted m eth ods that can
increase th e r·e pen o ire of effec ti ve teach in g met hodo logy.
An tony and Boatsman ( 1994) in ve sti gated co ll ege faculty usc
of co ope rati ve pedagogica l techniqu es in th eir class room s. A
survey of over 35,000 facul ty revea led that fac ul ty use of
coop era ti ve pedagogy wa s bes t meas ured by a seve n-item
constru ct. Res ult s showed wom en use d coo pernti ve pedagogy
nw rc th an rn cn; facu lt y in th e soft sc iences use d cooperati ve
met hod s more o ft en than did fa cult y in th e ha1·d sc iences.
Ani cles 011 peer len rnin g and indi v idua l o utco mes were
reviewed .
Wri ght <~ nJ Du nca n ( 1986) exa mtn ed relati onships betwee n
:-tttr·ilcti on to gro up and indiviJ u <~ l outco mes in group s and
betwee n group co hes ive ness nnd inui v idu al o utco mes in gro ups
parti cipa tin g in a group psyc hoth crap) ex per ientia l train ing
progr·a nl . Th ey fo und attracti on to gro up ~llld group
co hes iveness II' CI'c both relat ed to individua l ou tco mes. Eve n
adu lts ca n benefit (O lm stead, 1970) fro m sm all group meth ods
by er1hancing moti vat ion lo r learnin g. deve lopi ng pos iti ve
::t ttitu dcs tow::t rd later use of course ma teri als, and improv in g
probl em so lv in g ski ll s. H oweve r, group methods were no more
effec ti ve th an lec tures lo r trnn sminin g infonn at io n and
co ncept s.
Joa n B loo m ( 1975) tes ted th e effec t iven ess of a small -group
curri culum des igned to teac h cooperativ e wo rk . T rai ned groups
more frequentl y se lec ted th e most coo perat ive rul e opti ons.
Cho ice of rul es was unrelated to th e sex of th e group or th e
11 7
2
lk ll. Gu) OI.
Bellandet~al.:
DOMAIN
AND
ki aAN INTEGRATIVE ANALYSIS OF BENJAMIN BLOOM'S
Jo urn al or 13COGNITIVE
us iness and Leade
rship : Researc
h. Pracli ce. and Teac hino
~lani n .
2007. V o l. 3. No . I . 11 6- t 24
type of trainin g. C ho ice o f ru les wa s related to behav ioral
co hes ive ness bu t unrelated to type o f training. W alberg and
W ) nn e ( I 99 4) fo und th at lea rnin g gro up effec ti veness w as
hind ered by gro ups' short - l ived charac ter. T hey reco mm ended
educa tors stress group persistence by keep in g di screte gro ups
of stu de nt s and teachers togeth er over longer int erva ls.
McE lhinn ey and Murk ( 1994) advocated usin g small
lea rnin g groups in grad uate ed ucati on to prepare lea rn ers for
workp lace chall enges. Th ey report ed th e most effect i ve usc for
~ m a ll groups wa s in resea rch ing ar1d lea rnin g ex perienc es th at
do not have w ell -stru ctured pmcesses m o nl y one ri ght answe r .
Whil e small lca rrrin g group s ap pea red 10 oil er· ad va nw ges.
l imita tio ns wue also cited : un equa l co ntri but ions o f g roup
members, th e kn ow ledge level s o r group part ic ipants, and th e
di ffi culty o f eva luating perl"o rm ance and ass ig nin g grades.
T hey reco mm end ed in structors of small g roups hou ld ass um e
th e role o f fac ilit ator, offe rin g help o nly w hen group mem bers
ca nn ot so lve th e ass igned probl ems.
M ore recentl y, Stro m and Stro m (2002) int roduced th e
'o ll abo ration-lnt cgratio n Th eo ry. The th eo ry wa s based upon
th eir analys is o ftii" O limit ati on s ass oc iated w ith group learnin g:
( I ) how to eva l ua te stud en t gro up wo r·k ski ll s and (2) how to
prov ide ta sks that enilb le stud ent s to practi ce th ose skill s. T heir
the ory prov ided sugges ti o ns to ensure stu dents move from il
pil ss ive to an ac ti ve ro le in gro up lea rnin g situ ati o ns. In
add iti on. Draskov ic, H o ldrin et, Bu lt e, Bo lh ui s, and Va n
L ceuwe (2004) prese nted findi ngs on t he relat ionship betwee n
the va ri ab les co m pr ising lea rnin g mec hani sms in small
co ll aborati ve gro ups. Th eir· findin gs sugges ted th at a large
r ro porti o n of co ll abo rati ve se qu ences in th e group . toge th er
11 ith a low pro po rti o n o f dys fu ncti o nal behav ior and hi ghl y
r: tc i litati ve behav ior or th e tutor. sho u ld lead to in creased
kn ow led ge deve lopm ent.
Th e ~l i t era ture se arch revealed no stud y that di r·ec tl y
add resses our re ~e a r c h questi o n. namel\ th e co rTclati on
be111ee n lcarn ill !!_ and small gm up dC1e ltl pr11 Cill. ii OII CI Cr.
hundreds o f pee~· lea rn ing ~ ludi c~ h ~r 1 e be en pu b lr shcd l"lt c
arti cles we n.:v iewcd we re use d to iu stif) th e thr·cc spec ifi c nu ll
h) pOth eses use d to test group lcar:nin g by int egrat ing Gloo m 's
ta xo nomy w ith Tuck rn an 's stages o l" g ro up deve lopm ent.
llypot heses
O n -way
Mu lti va ri ate
A nalys is
of
Covaria nce
(I\1ANCOVA) wa s used to tc.: st fo r mea n cli!Terences among
dependent varia b les and cl cmograph ic va r iabl es ( I ) ge nd er, (2)
dec lared maj or. and (3) g rade leve l rega rd in g student s'
percept ions of dyadic and small gro up learn ing o n
dc1e lop ment. T he hy poth eses were stat ed as fo ll ows:
H y pothesis I : T here is no signi fi ca nt di.'fe rence
betwee n th e m ean s of stud ents' gend er rega rd tn g th err
perce pti ons o f dyadic and small gro up lea rnin g on
develop ment w hen age and cumul ati ve GP/\ are used as
co l'ar iates to parti al out the relati onship between th e
covaria te nnd seve n fa ctors.
H y po th es i ~ 2 : Th ere is no signifi ca nt difference amo ng
th e mea ns fo r stu dent s' dec lared majors ;1nd th err
Published by FHSU Scholars Repository, 2007
percept ions o f dya dic and small group learnin g on
deve lopm ent w hen cumul ati ve GPA is used as a
cova ri ate to parti al out th e relat ionship betw een th e
cova ri ate and se ve n fac to rs.
H y poth es is 3: T here is no significant difference amo ng
th e mea ns fo r stu dent s' grade level and th eir perce pti ons
of dyad ic and sm all group lea rnin g o n deve lopment
w hen cumu lati ve G PA is used as a cova ri ate to parti al
out th e relati onship betw ee n th e cova ri ate and se ven
fa cto r·s.
METHOD
Sa mpl e a llll Procedure: N in e co urses were used in th e
stud y as a rep resent ati ve sa mp le fro m a pop ulati on of
approx im ately I ,000 stu dents in a co ll ege of business at a
reg ional pub li c uni ve rsity. Business and non-bu siness majors
parti cipated in thi s stu dy. No n-bu sin ess m aj ors included
stud ent s from oth er co ll eges on ca mpu s. T hree hun dred thirt y
stud ent s co mpl eted a survey. In stituti onal guidelines on ethi ca l
co nduct were fo ll owe d and ap prova l w as granted. Th e GO LDS
sur vey co nt ain ed 33 it ems and demograp hi c data . Stud ents
res pond ed to a L ikert -type scale rangin g from I (strongly
d isagree) to 5 (strong ly agree). T hree (3) was used as a neutral
term . An unrotated prin cipal co mponent fac tor analys is
suggested se ven fa ctors be retained th at wo uld acco unt for 6 1
percent of th e sca le va ri ance . T he prin cipal ax is fac tor meth od
w ith proma x ob liqu e rotati on meth od w as used ( H atcher,
1994) . O ne- wa y MAN CO VA (u sin g se l f-reported cumul ative
G PA as covari ate) and analyses we re perform ed to assess
signifi ca nt di fl crences am ong three ind ependent va ri ab les and
th e se ven deri ve d fac tors. Th e f<Jc tors we re use d as multi var· iate
depe ndent va ri ab les to co mp are w ith means of ind epende nt
dcmogril phic var- iilb les . T he null hypoth eses w ere tes ted using a
0~ si,nillc111 ce k vd
. - D ~scr iptiv e Data: T he stil ti sti ca l analys es prese nt ed in thi s
~ tu d ) 11 ere ba se d on 33 0 usable surve ys. T he sur ve y wa s
co mpl eted by 164 males and 166 fe males. Stud ent ages ranged
frorn 17 to 42 yc ar·s. T he moda l age was 20 . T he average
cumul at ive G PA repo rt ed wa s 3 . 165, skewed hi gh beca use o f
MBA stud ents. GPA vari ed from 1.7 to 4 .0, and th e moda l
GPA wa s 3. 0 . T he sa mp le included 46 fres hm en, 6 1
soph omores, 98 j un io rs, 96 seni o rs. and 29 grad uates.
Scal e Develo pment: T he GOL D S is co mposed o f 33
scenari o statem ents. Statements I through 18 on th e GO LDS
were in fu se d w ith w hat Brow n and W eidm aier (2003) ca ll
"' process ve rb s." Bu sin ess teachers use proce ss ve rb s to w rit e
lea rnin g obj ec ti ves to as sess th e leve l o f a stu de nt 's intell ec tu al
abi li ty w ith in th e cogniti ve domain . T he cognitive domain is a
hi erarchy o f behav iors ass oc iated w ith certain ty pes o f
int ell ectu al ab i l iti es, beg inning w ith kn ow ledge and endin g
w ith eva luati on. In tab le I three process verb s fro m each of
B loom 's ( 1956) cogniti ve leve ls were selected randoml y from a
tab le prese nt ed in Brow n and W eidm aier (2003) . T hese process
ve rbs arc use d to indi ca te statement scenari os assoc iated w rth
eac h leve l o f int ell ec tu al ab ilit y. Fo r exa mp le. " k now ledge
leve l ment al ab il ity" use d three scenari o statement s w ith th e
I I8
3
OciL Guyot. Martin . and Meier
Journal of Business & Leadership (2005-2012),.J ourna
Vol.l 3o r[2007],
No. 1, Art. 14
Ou s in ~ ss and L~a d~rs h ip : Research. Practi ce. and Teaching
2007. Vol .
process verbs defin e, rec ite, or read. Statement s 19 through 33
on th e GOLDS used language th at approx imated fi ve stages o f
small-group deve lopm ental processes ( Forming, Stormin g,
Nonn ing, Performin g, and Adjournin g); th ese statement s were
derived from Tuck man ( 1965) and Tu ck man and Jensen
( 1977) . Tab le I sho w s wordin g simil ar to language used by
Tuckm an and Jense n ( 1965; 1977) . Th e GO LD S in strum ent
was used to integrate B loo m 's cogniti ve domain w ith Tu ck man
and Jense n's deve lop ment al model to mea sure our th eo ri ze d
o. I. 11 6- 124
constru ct (group learnin g on deve lopment ) . Bell and Q uaz i
(2004) recomm ended a stud y be do ne th at wou ld use
cumu lati ve GPA as a cova ri ate in a mea n co mpari son test.
Th ey did not conduct a ca use-e ffec t ex perim ent to estab li sh a
ca u al relati onship betwee n stud ent s' perce pti ons and th eir
actu al learnin g. Th ey made no attempt to de termin e pred icti ve
innu ences o f independ ent va ri abl es on stud ents' perceptions o f
th eir own learnin g. For thi s stud y, th e GOLD wa s analyzed
for it s reliabi lit y.
Table I : Cog nitiv e Domain (Le\'e l and Process Verbs), Development St ages and Statement N umb ers
BLOO~ t · s I'H OCESS \ ' EIW C. \T EGO I{\' FOH COC:N ITI\' E D O~ l A I N
Knl"' kd ~~ (defi ne. r~c1 tc . r~
Co mp n: ht. : nsion ( llltc q w.: t. ll <lll ' l ah.: . t:lli llpan.:)
App licati on (apph . soll'e . dlu wa te)
~~1al ys i s (summ ari ze. di :n!nll"',::.:,_c..:clcil
.:-.li.:
'-:', ,.-e,-117i:-,t c-·)Synth esis (lo nnul atc. prepare. propose)
Evalu ation (test. cri ti que. eva lu ate)
Tl l (' h:~IA N
,'\,J ENSEN 'S STAGES OF G ROU t' 1) [ \ ' ELOP t\ t ENT
STAT E1\I ENT Nli~ IB E H '---
S I. S2 . SJ
S-L ~5 . S6
S7 . SS. 59
S I 0. S I I . S 12
S I J . S 14. S 15
S 16. S 17. S 18
. .:--
STATE 1\IE NT Nll t\ IBEH
Ft>rm in~ (testin g members. orient ati on to leader. interperso na l )
S 19. 5 20. S2 1
Stonnin !:: (h o; tilitl . boundari es . tasks. resistance. co nfli cts .. )
S22. 523. S24
S25. 526. S27
Normin g (feelin gs. cohesiveness . reali stic swn da rds, etc .. )
S'=- 8:".-;S:-:2:::9-'-.-3c
S3::-0= ----Pcr lo rmin 2 (acco mp lishing task'. fl exib il ity. supporti ve ro le;. etc- '--c"------t---;;"Addournin g (lastin o oood or bad wi ll , scorn. free rider problem , etc
)
SJ I, S32. SJJ
~-------L~~~~-----
Instrument Reliabilit y: A Cronbach alph a reli ab ilit y test w as
perform ed on th e GO LD S in strum ent. T he standard ize d alpha
reli ability coeffici ent fo r th e overall sca le wa s 0.928. w hi ch
exceeds th e Nunnall y ( 1978) crit eri a o f 0.70 for an acce pt ab le
alph a. Develli s ( 199 1) writ es about scale reli abi li ty " betw een
.80 and .90, very good .
" ( p. 85) . The GO LD S sca le is a
" very good" meas ure o f stud ent s' pe rcepti on o f group learn ing
on deve lopm ent. Si nce no it em deleted added a noti ceab le
difference to th e sca le reli abi lit y. all item were ret<ti ned for
analyses . A fac tor analys is wa s co ndu cted aft er detcrm inin g th e
in trum ent reliabi lit y .
Factor A nal ys is: Bell and Q ua7 i (2004) found signi fi can t
stati sti ca l d i fferenccs be t wee n bu siness maj ot·s' and nonbu sin ess majors· pet·cc pti ons o f leamin g in d ya d ~ and smal l
groups. Th ei r first deri ved factor foun d busin ess majors
perce ive d dya ds and small gro ups to be th e num ber one fac tor
assoc iated with th eir ow n learnin g. Simil at· sce nari o statetn ent s
relatin g to dya ds were used in th e GOL D S. Stu de nt respo nses
from th e GO LD S surve y were first subj ec ted to an un rotated
fa ctor
so luti on
usin g prin c ipa l co mponent anal ys is and
" Scree" tes t w hi ch suggested th at seven fac tors be retained fo r
rotati on. Th e ori ginal fac tors account ed for 60.7 1 perce nt
o f th e total ca le va ri ance. Promax ob l iqu e rotati on was
used to ex trac t th e seven facto rs, as show n in tab le 3. Th e
crit eri on
fo r
selec tin g fac tor loadin gs was se t at 0.3 8
(Dcve lli s, 199 1: Hatcher. 199 4 ; K ac hi ga n. 199 1) Usin g th ese
crit eria , six item s were fo und to load 011 Fac tor I , w hi ch was
subsequentl y labeled
ormin g and Per fo rmin g. Six it ems
loaded on Factor 2. Kn ow ledge ,
omprehensio n and
A ppli c tti on T asks. Fi ve it ems loa ded on Fac tor 3, Eva lu ati ve
l~ o rm in g. T hree items w ere f und to load 011 Fac tor 4,
Stornw1 g . T wo it ems loaded on Fac tor 5. 13 ad Will A dj o urni ng.
1'11 0 item
loaded on Factor 6, A nalyz ing . Four items
l ~>a d e d on F;1 to r 7. Synth esiz in g w ith Good W i ll Adj oumin g.
~Le l1 a ri o stJt cm ents fm Factor I nrc pre~e nt e d in tab le 2
below.
Table 2 : Sce nari o Statements Nonnin g (S2 5, S26, S27) and Pe rformin g (S28 , S29, SJO) for Fac tor I
Fac tor O ne: Norming :uul Performin g
S2 7. M) e\peri ence 11it h small groups has sho11n me that I k arned better 11hcn members 11ere all o11ed to adopt ne11 r• >k> an d the ir
pe rsonal opi nions co uld be e\prc" cd fred )
S26. My experience with small grou p> has shown me tha t I learn ed bell er 11 hen m e mb e r~ were open minded enough to all o11 rca l1 stic nc11
standa rds to evo lve from honest feed ha c ~
S28 . My experien ce "ith small groups has shown me that I learned be tier "hen members co ul d usc :he q rcngtlh ol th eir int erpe rsonal
rel ati onships to acco mpli sh spec if1 c t as ~ s
SJ O. My ex perience with small groups has shown me th at I learn ed bett er 11 1 1<:~ 1 members hcca mc sup po rti1 e o l ta s ~ pe rl(>rmancc and
highl y co mmitt ed to achieving goals
529 M) experience with small group> has sho11n me th at I karn ~ d bell er 11 hcn Ill ) fun ctional rok 11 :1 ' lk ,i bk and the gru up 's cncrg)
co ul d he chann eled int o co mp leti n!: "" ~ s
S25. My ex perien ce 11ith small groups has shown me th at I learn ed bell cr 11 hcn members dc v cl o p~d tru e li:c lin gs IOII arcl s each oth er and
coul d 11 0rk co hes ivcl ) on goal'
T o asce rt ain if' th ere w ere nn1 signifi ca nt d ifferences in
stud ents' pe rcep1ions among th e detnograph ic vari ables
(gend er, dec lared major, and grade leve l ). dat3 were fu rt her
http://scholars.fhsu.edu/jbl/vol3/iss1/14
anal )zcd usin g in!'erential stmi sti cs to test !h e null hypoth eses.
Tab le 3 sho ws new fac tors and it em de cript ions o f th e
ex trnctcd !'actors.
11 0
4
Bell et al.: AN INTEGRATIVE ANALYSIS OF BENJAMIN BLOOM'S
COGNITIVE DOMAIN AND
ltn n1 1a l ti l H11 ... i1 1c \O.: :111d l .clH.Icr..; hip · R c s c ar~; h . l'racth.:c , a 11 d Teaching
I t ~..: ll. ( i11y n t. M: u·1i11 . and i'Vk 1c 1
200 7, Vn l. J . No. I , 11 6- 124
Tahlc J: l'romax (Ohliquc) Ho1a1ions wi1h Seven Far1ors and C onnnunali1ics *
Slalrlllt' lllll
Fartor I ,oatliugs
( 'ommunalifit·s
0 27
.X6 1
!)
!)
74 5
(_)\0
<) 2~
,'i 05
1) 20
1(,
<) '
-.0'>5
.000
.0 I (,
.001
. 125
- I 11
.II X
.0 55
-. {1(, I
.0 I 1)
-.0 15
-. I I (I
.01!2
-. 125
-.Otl 1
-.0')0
(J.I '!
0111
-.002
.050
-. 1(·7
.0.17
- 030
l 'i2
- ()tl ()
-. 11(,
- 11X
OXO
- 0(>1
-. OXO
06 1)
I ~ ~1
(1(,7
-. 0 I
.0 50
- 0(,
.rm
1
XII
- 120
12]
-. 17 1
1 )~
- 0·11
.63J
'!7
. 12(•
I O'J
- Ill)(,
IH O
- 075
- I I(,
- . 12 1
()<)O
- OliJ
- IH I
- 14
-.01 5
0I~
- 020
or. I
(, ')
0·1 j
- 0'19
55 ()
- I 5
2 111
- 0 111
.7 17
- Il l
1.1 ·1
(ll)tl
- 1) ] (,
- 0 12
1(1(,
- ()Ill
1107
II I I
0 7X
1(,()
lii>X
111 1
I()<)
-
65<1
'i 'll
0 2X
) 'I I
I.JI !.
IJ'I I
0 '.1
7 I')
- II \
· II X!,
I) I X
I II
()XII
!J 11I
11011
I "I
II I 'i
()IX
(.\ I
1) 1/
() 1/
02 I
1.1 7
- II'! .'
IJX(>
I
I
I '1 7
(, I(,
() .' I
!I(,
- 011 5
·I '> I
.1 ·1(,
- (l 'i'i
11 .'7
- II ')
(1,11
() I I)
() 'i
I
ll 'i !,
1·1'1
().1()
·120
257
- 11 11
- 112
- I XO
- O'i X
- I l l<
X2(,
- 11·1(,
- 071
I IX
.0 17
00·1
IJ 'itl
6 17
- 00 7
() 5 1
- 1·12
- I 02
() 5 (,
I •1·1
2'1
0 7(,
0·17
I I (I
5 <)1)
11 2·1
07X
- 010
- Oil ~
X'i (,
- 0 5')
- 11·17
75 X
!) 1 I
() 55
- 1•17
()( ,2
- 11 2'1
(, 57
()(,X
- 0 52
7·111
!) I II
0(1 11
- 0 5'i
OX
- 0·111
- () I II
1IIX
- I IX
72 (,
() I I
!)
1!
1
-0 7
2 1X
- 11 11
0'<
07 1
1X2
1·15
'i .1
( _)(,
1'1 5
27
0·11
0 11
02· 1
.~' )()
() 'i. l
() '; . (
!) I I
I 'i2
- () (,(,
0 11I
(!()()
<) I I
11 7 1
- () I X
11X
I)
1
II
() 1.'
-
- Ill• .'
- 11 7 I
(,() I
() 'i (l
0'17
110 I
•1·1·1
.' 1(,
I0 I
0 I 'I
Ill •I
1112
I XI•
<) 7
('i(,
\2 I
I' I
11 7X
l l'i ll
()I I
1')'1
IX I
()I .'
()()(,
1."1
()() .'
I l 'i
Il l !
-' .' X
1\. 1
11·1
I) I 'i
0' !7
1·111
.1 17
- (I ! I
()(,I
() 1.1
27 '1
27'!
(,()()
T: thk ,J: Mttllivarial<: Tr , l s for l'ill:ti 's Tr:nT :tttd l{o y 's L:trgcsl Hool
c ; t' lllkr
l 'i llai ' .., I 1 :1r r
II 17
V :II IIC
.1
II ) (l<> IIIC' "
I
11 111
dl
1211
·"'l'
l ':utlld l ' ta Squ :ucd
t
) 'i ()
dl
1t..: p1 L\L il h p
() '; :tlld
(;r :uk lr vd
~
l:i jor
Ho y'..,
l.arg r " l l{ oo l
( ;flltlt' l'
Cra clrlnd
llrdarrcl
0(/l
2 7) 1)
' 17 1
I 22 X
2 2'i ll
2X
1/ X•I
;:; (.
7
7
X
2.' •10
1 0
1 I
.I 0
.1111(,•· ·
~X)
.0211
f(! li C\C ill '-1 p· ()I
.lU ll '
IJ.I 7
t t
ll rrl:o rr d
0 12
I '11•7
117'1
-' (IX
V: li lll'
12 1
S>t;
OHJ
l':uli :d l 'la Sq11 alcd
0 111
.(IJ() .
0·17
17 X
.OJ I
~lajor
() (,i(
nr
Findi ngs: To l c sl lit e 11tree null lt y pollt eses, res pon ses l'rnrtt
.13 0 sur ve ys we re uscd . M 111ii v ;~ri<~l e l esl s fo r l'illa i '., Tr:tcc and
lt ypullt cscs l cs l ed <t l (I s i ~; nili c: rti CC le vel
.05. A sig n i li C<tlll
dii'lc rCII CC \Vi iS I(HIIId bc i WCC II lit e lll <.:iiii S Of Slltd CIII S' g<.: nd Cr
Ro y's L ; u l~C S I l{oo l an; pres<.: ttl cd itt lab lc 4 li 1r 11t c litre<.: llttll
rc ~;ardin ~; lltc ir pcrcc pliOII S Of d y adi c <t nd Sl11<ill g roup lcarnill"
Published by FHSU Scholars Repository, 2007
5
Bdl. Guyot. Martin . and Meier
r Bu sinessNo.
and1,
Leadership
Journal of Business & Leadership (2005-2012),.J ourna
Vol. l3o[2007],
Art. 14 · Resea rch. Practice. and Teaching
2007. Vol. 3. No . I. 11 6- 124
on deve lopment wh en age and cumulativ e GPA w ere used to
partia l out the relation ship betwee n th e cova ri ates and seven
factors ; therefore, hy poth es i s I was rej ec ted .
A significa nt difference wa s fo und am ong th e means of
stud ents' declared m ajo rs and th eir perception s o f dya di c and
sma l l group lea rnin g o n deve lo pm ent w hen c umul ative GPA
was used to partial out the relati onship betwee n th e cova ri ate
and seven factors; th erefore, hy pot hes is 2 w as rejected . No
significant difference wa s found in stud ents' grade leve l and
th eir percept ions o f dyadi c and small gro up lea rnin g on
deve lop ment wh en cumul ati ve GPA wa s used as a covar iate to
partial ou t th e relati onship between th e cova ri ate and seven
factors; th erefo re, hy poth es is 3 wa s no t rej ec ted. Th e nex t
se ction offe rs co nc lu sio ns and recomm endati ons th at should be
helpful for pro fessors of bu sin ess usin g m eth ods o f group
lea rnin g.
Tabl e 5: Tukey ' s Pos t H oc Procedure s of Paired Majors on Eac h Factor
MAJ O R
ACCT
13U SC
LEAD
MGMT
MRKT
ACCT
13USC
F l-. 02-1*
UO: AD
MGMT
1'4= 003**
1' 7-. 040*
MRKT
I' IN;\
MIS
f'4 =. 0 10**
DOU I3
OTti ER
F2 =. 0 12*
F2-. 0 I ~·
F2 = 022 *
FJ =. 006"'*
FS =.045*
FJ = 023 •
Fo= 009 ..
f' 2= 0 13*
FIN A
1'4=. 0 10'*
1'5= 0-1 5*
F-1=. 003**
MI S
F4 =. 003 * *
DOU B
F7= 0 15*
F7=. 040*
OTHER
Table 5 shows Signifi cant result s o l th e Tu!- c) s pos t hoc proced ure lor co mpann g each maJ or and each factor
All seven factors had at kast one maj ur th at di ff ered from anoth er maj or
F6= 0 12*
F2= Oil *
F2= 008*'
F3=. 027*
F4= 035 *
process verb s used in eac h sce nari o statem ent representin g th e
appropri ate leve l of m ental abili ty in th e cogniti ve domain
( Bl oom et al., 1956) . Three rand o ml y selec ted process verbs
represented an ap propri ate level o f cog niti o n (Brown and
W eidmaier, 200 3). Stud ents responded to GO LD S it ems S 19
through SJJ th at represe nt ed fi ve stages of g ro up developm ent
(Tuckm an and Jensen, 1977) . Th e respon ses we re subj ected to
fac tor analys is, res ultin g in seven deri ved factors. Th e deri ved
fa ctors are co nstru ed as sepa rate di m ension s of th e DGLM
co nstru ct.
Conclusions
Base d upon th e fac to r analy sis o f th e GOLDS 33 item
sce nari o statem ent s, th e se ven deri ved fa cto rs co ntribut e to
und ers tandin g of how d y nami c gro up lea rnin g relates to stages
of small group deve lo pm ent . T he seven derived factors we re
used to justify the creat io n of a D y nam ic G ro up L earnin g
M ode l ( D G LM ) as prese nted in fi g ure I . Bl oo m ' s cogniti ve
domain ( kn ow ledge , co mprehensio n, app li ca ti on, anal ys is,
synth es i s, and eva lu ati o n) is repres ent ed by rand o ml y selec ted
Figure I
T t-... e Dy n a n -...t c G r o up L ear n11"1 Q M o c t e l
(D G LM )
KN O VV L ~D G C
Dc l,, o
Ro c •h->
Ru ..> ._t
lOli
showe d sce nari o statem ent s ( S2 7, S~ 6 , S ~ S . SJO , S29 , S25)
represent ing N or min g and Perfo rmin g loaded o n Fac to r I and
acco unted lo r 3 1.50 perce nt o f th e sc ale var iance. Res pondent s
perce i ved sm all group learnin g wa s m o re inilu enced by
Fo rmin g and Stormin g stage s o r deve lop men t th an by low er
leve l cog nit i ve abi liti es. T he DGLM show s a tl ow of small
group lea rnin g processes from th e Nonni ng and Perfo rmin g to
Sy nth esiz in g w ith Good Will Adjo urnin g . Na nn i ng and
Perl'orrnin g has m ore w eight in th e DGLM th an th e lowe r leve l
int ell ectu al abi I it ies in Fac to r 2, w hi ch is co mposed o f'
A s show n in fi gure I , th e D G LM presup po ses in d iv id ual
lea rnin g to be intell ec tu all y hi erarchi ca l, co nsi stent w ith B loom
et al. ( 1956); m oreove r, th e direc ti onal fl ow of cog niti ve
learnin g is indi ca ted w ith at mws m ov in g fm m !-.n ow ledge
down to eva luati o n. O f s p ec i ::~ l im port ance is th e t wo-way fl ow
between an individu al g ro up m em be r ·s cog niti ve nbi liti es and
th e se ve n derived fac to rs. W e propose th at sm all group lea rnin g
occurs as a res ult o f int er venin g va ri ables, co mbin ed wi th sm all
group lea rnin g proce sse s th at help shape nece ssm y tas k s
lea din g to co mmun nl goa l ac hi evem cnt ( s). T hi s resea rch
http://scholars.fhsu.edu/jbl/vol3/iss1/14
I ~
I
6
et al.:
AN
Bell. C> u)OI. Ma nBell
in. and
f\ tcier
INTEGRATIVE ANALYSIS OF BENJAMIN BLOOM'S
ANDPracri cc. and Teaching
Journ al of COGNITIVE
Business and LcadDOMAIN
~ rs hip : Research.
2007. Vol. 3. No. t. I t6-t 24
K now ledge, Co n1prehension and App l ic::ni o n T asks ( Bl oo m et
al. . 1956) .
We surmi se fro m the DG LM stud ent s may perce ive th at
small gro ups tlw t prog ress be yo nd Fo rmin g and tormin g may
be bette r pos it ioned to eng<1ge in mean in g ful learnin g tasks
related to achi ev ing co mm un al goa l(s) . Factor I , N ormin g and
Performin g, acco unt s fm more than fi ve tim es th e va ri ance o f
Factor 7, Synthe<; izin g wi th Good Wi ll A lj ournin g. Th e oneway arrow beg in ni ng w ith Fac tor I fl o ws towa rd task
acco mp l ishm ent. Th e DG LM refl ec ts a lilrge number o f
lea rnin g
and
deve lo pm ent al
proce sses
w hi ch
occur
simultan eo usly and show an inev itabl e fl o w towa rd s goal
ac hi eve ment. T herefore, small group lea rnin g on deve lopm ent
mi ght be co nstru ed as a d ynami c process th at fac i I itates task
ac compli shm ent s w hi ch lead to goa l achi eve ment s. Stu dents
also appear to perceive hi gher level cog niti ve abi liti es but at a
lesse r rate on th e g ro up deve lopment processes, in cludin g
Eva luati ve Formi ng, Stormin g, Bad
Wi ll Adj ourning,
A nalyz in g, and Synth es izi ng w ith Good Will Adj ourning.
fh c re sea rchers were intri gued th at eva luati on and
synt hesis, higher learn in g ab i l iti es. we re present at a gro up 's
fmma tion and ad jo urnm ent. M ore adva nce d cogniti ve ilb il it y
wa s assoc iated w ith adjo urnm ent w it h bad w i l l m good w ill .
l l ighc1· leve l learni ng appcilrs to take p lace in th e !o rm at io n o f
the sma ll grou p and at it s adjo umm ent. Perhap s stud ent s form
prece pts abo ut future relatio ns because they dread nr favm
havin g an enco unter w ith th e same pe1·so nal it; t) pC or persons
in a f utu re pce 1· lem nin g co ntext. Neve nh clc ss , adjo urn1n e11t
iss ues appear to be moderat ely imporlan t ! ·a c t o r ~ in dy nan11 c
group lea rn i ng nn de ve lo pm ent. More imporlantl y. stud ent s
perceive lowe r le vel int ell ec tu al ab il iti es to be assoc ia ted wit h
the sta ges o f de1 elopm ent that T uc!._m an and Jensen ( 1977)
a<;soc ia tcd w ith tas!._ accomp li shm ent and go :-~ 1 ac hi eve ment. A s
illu strated in l: ig ure I , th e l)u i, M shows o ne arrow tl ow in g
from tas!._ acco mp li shm ent to goal achi eve ment representin g
the endpo int fm small g roup lea rnin g on deve lopm ent. T he
arrow be twee n tas!._ acco mpli shm ent s and goa l ac hi eve ment is
unidirec tion al beca use task acco mpli shm ent s arc nece ssary for
goa l ac hi eve m ent. T he fo ll ow ing reco mm cmiati o ns are o ff ered
to business educ 1l01·s.
D G LM - No rmin g and Performin g. Recall tho se two stages
co mpri se Fac tor I , w hi ch stu dents perce ive to be associated
wi th group lea rnin g on develo pme1 t. T o facilitate learnin g,
pro fesso rs can ( I ) ass ign lea dership ro les, (2 ) give groups the
il b ilit y 10 se lec t leaders il nd wa ys to change or adopt new
leaders, (3) gi ve groups th e ab ilit y to termin ate th e membership
o f non-p rodu cti ve members through agree m ent , (4) give a
number o f tasks we ig hted by importance, and (5) write out th e
goa l or goals th e gro up is to achi eve w ith a tim e schedule.
R ecomme nd atio n Three: Pro fessors' writt en instru cti ons
should pert ain to th e k now ledge, co mprehension and
appli ca ti o n levels th at co mpri sed D GL M Factor 2 . Learning
objecti ves usin g th e process verb s defin e, rec ite, read, interpret,
translate, co mpare, appl y, illustrate, and so lve should be w ritten
out in ad va nce o f small group form ati on. A s noted in Fi gure I ,
alth ough ana lyz in g and eva lu atin g were fa ctors, it appears
lowe r leve l cogniti ve proce sses have m ore influence on small
group lea rnin g tasks once th e group has progressed beyond
No rmin g and Per formin g stages. T hi s stud y w ill enh ance th e
thi nkin g and prac ti ce in bu sin ess edu cati on. Small groups w ill
benefit fro m improved w ritt en instru cti o ns tail ored to th e lower
leve ls o f cog niti on, and sm all groups w ill develop qui ckl y
be yo nd fom1ing and stormin g w ith assistance o f bu siness
less ors.
wo
R E FERENCES
A1ll o ny, J .. & 13oatsman, 1< . 1994 . Defining the teachinglearni ng fun cti on in term s o f coo perati ve pedagogy: An
cmpir·ica l ta xo no m y of fa cult y practic es . Paper presented
at th e A nnu al Mee tin g o f th e A ss ocia t io n for th e Stu dy of
II ig her Ed uca t ion.
A rt zt, A ., & Ar mom-Th omas, E. 1990 . Protocol analysis of
gro up prob lem so l v in g i n m ath ematics: A cognitivem etacog niti\'e
fram ework
for
assess ment.
P3per
pre sented at the A nnual M ee tin g o f th e A meri ca n
Ed uca ti onal Research A s oc iati on, B os ton .
A rt zt, A ., & A rm o ur-Thomas, E. 1992 . D evelopment o f a
cognit ive -m ctacognit i ve fram ewo rk for protoco l analys is o f
math ematica l problem so l v in g in small groups. Cog nition
and In struc ti on, 9 : 137 .
nccom m end ation s
l{ccomm endation One Bu siness profc ss o1·s at th e 1·eg ional
un1versity w here the inve st iga t ion wa s cond ucted (usin g pcc rle<lrnin g as a teac hin g too l) sho uld w rit e c lear and prec ise
lll '> lru ct ions for s m:-~ 11 gro ups. l n<;t ru cti ons sho uld be wr itt en in
direc t i1 e. o ut C ll n ll' ~ -ba s c d language at th e appropria te lowe r
IL:1 els of int el le ctua l abi l iti es ( 1-_n ow ledge, co mprehension and
<~p pll c atiO il } us1n);. spcc ili c pro ce ss vc rbs.
HccommcrHi a ti o u Two: 11u sin css pro !Csslli'S should ass ist
-, tud cnl 'i to p1·ugrcss beyo nd 11 hat T uck man ( I 965 . I 977 ) rcf'e rs
[() .1'> '> ta ges llnl: an d [ \\'0 o r ~ mall group clc vc lopm cnt: fo rmin g
c~nd '> lormin l'
l'cachers ca 11 do so by rand lJm ly ass igning
student s to g~·oup s and requi rin g th em to ii<;S ign fo rm al m les,
such as a JXC sid cnt a11d a sec retary. Small groups need help
gettin g beyo nd th e fom1in g and stormin g stages q ui ck ly in
ord er to fa c ilit ate progress towa rd th e first stage in th e
Published by FHSU Scholars Repository, 2007
Bel l, R , & Q un i, R. 2004 . M ixed m eth od in stru cti on
across busin ess d iscip lines. So uthwestern
Bu siness
Ad ministrati on J ournal , 4 : 35-47 .
Gl oo m, B ., L:: ng leliart , M ., Fu rst, E., Hill , W ., & Krathwohl , D.
o f educati onal obj ec ti ves,
1956 . T he ta xo nom y
lland boo l; I: The co gnitive d ornain. New Y ork : Dav id
M c l< ;1y Co mpan y, In c.
B loo m. 11 . \ 9~<1 . ril e sea rch fo r meth od s o f gro up instru cti on
as ciTec t i ve
as one-to-o ne
tut orin g.
Educational
Leadership , <1 I : 4- 17.
B loo m, J. 197 5. Small g roup cooperative curriculum
and exper im ental evaluation: A stud y of cooperation
122
7
BelL Guyo t. Martin . and Meier
BusinessNo.
and 1,
Leadershi
Journal of Business & Leadership (2005-2012),Journ
Vol.al3of[2007],
Art. 14p: Research. Practi ce. and Teachi ng
200 7. V ol. 3. No. I .
trammg. Fina l Report. (E RI C Docum ent Reprod uction
Service No . ED I 008 77).
Brown , H., & We idm a ier, C. 2003. Planning for in stru cti on. In
M. Rader, (Ed.), Effecti ve meth ods of teachin g bu sin ess
education in the 21 " Ce ntur y. Yearbook 4 1, (pp. 46-62) .
Reston, VA: Nati ona l Bus iness Ed ucati on Assoc iati on.
Cronbac h, L. 195 1. Coeffi c ient a lpha and the intern al str ucture
o ftests. Psychom ctrika, 16: 297-334 .
Draskov ic, 1. , Ho ld rin et, R., Bu lt e, .1 , Bo lhuis, S., & Van
Lee uwe. J. 2004 . Mode lin g sma ll group learn in g:
Instru cti ona l sc ience . Int ern a ti ona l Jo u r na l of Learn ing
and C ognitio n, 32: 447-473 .
11 6- 124
Professo rs of Adult Edu ca ti o n 23: I, 84-9 , Da ll as, Texas.
Moo re, M. 1970. T he perceptu a l-motor do mai n and a proposed
taxo no my of percepti on. AV Co mmunica ti o n Rev iew, 18:
379-4 13.
Nea l, J., & Ec htern ac ht, L. 1995. Th e effect o f st ru ct u re d
tec hniqu es on g ro up d ecisio n m ak in g in t h e
un de r g r a du a te bu sin ess co mmunica ti o n class r oo m.
Pape r present ed at th e annua l meetin g o f the American
Ed uca tiona l Research Associat io n (Sa n Franc isco , CA.
April 18-22).
Nu nn a ll y. J. 1978 . Psyc hometr ic th eo r y. New York : McGrawHill .
Deve lli s. R. 199 1. Sca le d eve lo p rnen t. Thousand Oa ks. CA:
Sage Pu b Iicati o ns
O lm stea d, J. 1970 . T heory a nd state of the a rt of s mallg r o u p me th ods o f in s tru ctio n. (ER IC Doc um e nt
Rep1oduCl ion Se rvice No . ED040 34 5. Abstract onl y).
Hatcher, L. 1994 . A step-b y-s tep a pproac h to usin g th e
S AS(R) sys te m fo r fac to r a na lys is a nd str uctu ra l
equati on mod e lin g. Ca ry, NC: SAS Institut e.
S h::u an. S .. & S hau lov , A. 1990 . Coo pera ti ve lea rnin g,
motivat ion to learn , and acad emi c achi eve ment. In S.
Sharan, (Ed .), C oopera ti ve learning: Theory a nd
resea r ch. (p p. 173-202). New Yo rk: Pr·aege r.
Hauserm an, C. 1992 . See kin g an e ffective cooperati ve learnin g
strategy. C ont e mpo r a ry Ed uca tio n, 63: 185- 190 .
Simpson. 13 . 1966 . The c lass ifi cati on o r ed uca ti onal obj ecti ves.
psychomotor domain . Illinois Tea c h er of Home
Eco no mi cs, 10: 11 0- 144 .
Hea ley, M., & Matth ews, H. 1996 . Lea rnin g in sma ll gro ups in
uni ve rs ity geograp hy co urses: Des ignin g a core modu le
aroun d group proj ects. J o urn a l of Geog ra ph y in Hi gher
Edu ca tion , 20: 167 -1 7 1.
Slava n. R. 1985 . An introd uct io n to coo perat ive lea rnin g
resea rch. In R. Slava n, S. Sharan, S. Ka ga n, R. Lazarowi tz,
C. Webb, & R. Sc hmu ck , (Eels. ), Learning to cooperate,
coope r a ti ng to lea r n. (p p. 5- 18), Ne w Yo rk : Plenum Press .
Kac hi ga n, S. 199 1. Multi va ri a te sta tistica l a na lys is. New
York: Radi us Press .
Ke rlin ge r, F. 1973 . Fo und a ti o ns o f be hav io ra l researc h.
Austin . T exas: Ho lt . Rinehart , & Win ston.
So lo mon. D. 1990 . Coo perati ve lear nin g, intra g ro u p
d y na mi cs, and stud eut outcomes. Paper prese nted at th e
A meri ca n
Psyc ho log ica l
Annu a l Mee tin g o r th e
Assoc iat ion, 98th . ( Bos ton, MA, Aug ust I 0-1 4).
Krath wo hl , D., Bloo m, B .. & Ma sia, B. 196-l . A taxo no my o f
educa ti o na l o bj ec ti ves: Ha nd boo k 2, th e affect ive
d o main . New York : David Mc Kay Co .
St1·o1n . P., & Strom. R. ~0 02 . Ove rco min g lim ita ti ons o f
c llperati ve lea min g a mon g co mm unit y co ll ege student s.
Co nt m unit y Co llege Jourual of Resea r ch & Practice, 26 :
3 15-33 I.
Larson, C., Danserea u, D .. O' Donn e ll . A., Hythecker, V.,
La mb iott e, J .. & Roc kli n. T . 1984 Verba l abili ty and
coope rati ve lea rnin g: Tra ns fer of e ffec ts. J o urn a l o f
Readin g Behav io r, 16: 289 -2 95.
Tu cl--1na11 , B. 1965 . l)eve lop1n ental sequ ences in sma ll groups.
Psyc ho log ical 13ulletin , 63: 384 -399 .
Laza row it z. R., & Karsenty. G . 1990 . Coopera ti ve learn ing and
stu dents' acade mi c ac hi e ve ment , process ski ll s, learnin g
environm ent , a nd se lf-estee m in tenth -grade b io logy
c lassrooms. In S. Sharan, (Eel .), C oo perat ive lea r ning :
Th eory and r esearc h. (pp . 123- 149) , New Yo rk: Praege1·.
Tu cl-- 1n::tn , B., & Jense n. M. 1977. Stage s o f" small- group
deve lo pm ent re vi s it ed. Gro up and Orgau ization Studies,
2 4 19 -447 .
McKeachi e, W., Chi sm. N., Menges, R , Sv in icki, M., &
We in ste in , C. 1994 . Teachi ng ti ps: Strateg ies, researc h and
th eory for co ll ege and un ive rs it y teache1·s. Lex ington, MA :
Heath and Co mpa ny.
Webb , N . & Grib . T. 1967. Teaching process as a lea rn ing
experience: The ex per imental use o f studcut - led groups.
( Final Repo rt . HE-000-882) . Washing to n, DC: De partm ent
o f l lea lth, Educa ti on, and Welfare.
McE lhinn ey, J. , & Mur k, P. 1994 . Us in g sma ll learnin g groups
in grad uate ed ucation . In/\ . Q uig ley, (Ed.). Proceedi ngs of
th e 1994 Annu a l Co n fe r ence fo r t !te Co mmiss io n of
Wri g ht, T. , & Du nca n. D. 1986 . Attracti on to group . group
co hes ive ness and in di viclu::t l o ut co me : A stud y o f t1·a inin g
groups. S ma ll G r o u p 13e ha vior·, 17: 487-492 .
http://scholars.fhsu.edu/jbl/vol3/iss1/14
123
8
Bell
al.: AN
13ell . Guyol. Marti n.
nndetMeier
INTEGRATIVE ANALYSIS OF BENJAMIN BLOOM'S
COGNITIVE DOMAIN AND
Journal or Business and Leadership : Research, Practi ce. and Teachin o
200 7. Vol. J. No . I , 11 6- 124'
Reginald Bell is an ass istan t professo r o f bus in ess com muni ca tion at Prairi e View A&M University. He rece ived hi s Ph .D. in
busin ess edu ca tion fro m th e U ni ve rsit y of Missouri at Co lum bia . He has pub li shed in B usiness Co mmuni cati on Quarterl y,
Int ern ati onal Jou r·nal of Ed uca tio n Resea rch, Journal of Business and Leadership : Research, Practice and Teaching, Journal of
Co ll ege Teachi ng and Learn in g, So uthwestern B usin ess Ad ministrat ion Jou rn al and th e Journa l of Diversity M anage ment.
Wa lly Guyot is a pro fessor of acco unting and inform at ion sys tems at Fort !l ays State Un ive rsity. He rece ived hi s Ph .D. in
bu ~ in ess ed uca tion rom U ni versity of North Dakota. Hi s cu rrent research int eres ts in clude pedagogy and in stru cti on in bu siness
subj ec ts, in cl udin g bu sin ess co rnr n uni ca ti on. li e has publi shed in Jour·nal o f Bu sin ess Ed uca tion , and made several presentat ions at
the So uth wes t Bu sin ess Sy mpos ium , ~nd he is th e auth or/co -au th or o f seve ral academic manu scrip ts in progress.
Philip l\1artiu is il n in stru ctor o r mana ge men t at Fort ll ilys St3t c l Jni ve rsity. li e rece ived hi s MBA from Fo n Hays State
Un ive rsity . Hi s cu rrent research int ere sts in c lu de pedagogy and in stru cti on in busin ess subj ec ts, inc lu d ing bu siness
co mmuni ca ti on. He has publi shed in Int ern at ional Journal o f Edu cati on Resea r-c h, and made se ve ral prese ntati ons at th e So uth west
Bu sin ess Symposium .
Robert Meier is a professor of acco untin g & inform ati on sys tem s ill Fort Hays State Unive rsity. He rece i ved hi s Ph .D. in stati sti cs
from K ansas Stale Universit y. Hi s current resea rch interes ts in clud e pedagogy and in stru ct ion s in bu sin ess subj ec ts, in cluding
bu siness co mmuni ca ti on. He has rub li shed in Central Bu sin ess Revi ew, Int ern ati onal Journa l of Ed uca ti on Resea rch , Jou rn al of
Co mput er Inform ati on System s, Resea rch Journal o f th e Academy Tran sac tion s on Co mput er In fo rm ati on System s, and
So uthwes tern Bu siness Adm ini strati on Jou rn aL
Published by FHSU Scholars Repository, 2007
12'-l
9