Florida Guide for Revising or Developing Standards and Benchmarks for Career and Technical Education Programs

The purpose of this guide is to provide Career and Technical Education (CTE) program reviewers and developers with foundational information necessary to ensure consistency in the quality of standards and benchmarks in curriculum frameworks published by the Division of Career and Adult Education. Intended primarily for use by the program supervisors, members of the Industry Advisory Council should find it useful when evaluating and developing standards and benchmarks for Florida’s career and technical education programs.

It is hoped that by applying the foundational information contained in this document, that our curriculum frameworks will have fewer, higher, and better standards. Achieving this will require every reviewer or creator of CTE standards and benchmarks to adhere to the guidelines relating to rigor, relevance, clarity, and specificity.
	
The Language of Curriculum Frameworks

Standard:  A statement describing a specific behavior, action, or competency a student should be able to demonstrate based on the underlying instruction.  Standards were previously referred to in frameworks as outcomes and were supported by student performance standards (SPSs). This redefinition will ensure that any reference to the term “standards” is uniform (see example below).

Benchmark:   A clear, specific description of knowledge or skill (competency) that students should acquire in order to demonstrate achievement of the related standard. These were previously referred to as student performance standards (SPSs). This redefinition will ensure that any reference to the term “benchmark” is uniform (see example below).

Example

01.0	Standard #1
01.01	First benchmark of Standard #1
01.02	Second benchmark of Standard #1
02.0	Standard #2
02.01	First benchmark of Standard #2
02.02	Second benchmark of Standard #2

CIP Number: This is a 10-digit number used to identify a specific program. Number assignments are based on the Classification of Instruction Programs (CIP) schema published by the U.S. DOE.

SOC Code: This is an eight-digit code used to identify categories of occupations. Code assignments are based on the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) system published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Extensive information about different occupations, including job titles, can be found on the Occupational Information Network (O*Net) website (http://online.onetcenter.org/). 

CTSO: Career and Technical Student Organization.

PSAV: Post-Secondary Adult Vocational. This refers to job preparatory programs offered at either Technical Career Centers or in some cases, state/community colleges.

OCP: Occupational Completion Point. This refers to an exit point in a program for students who have achieved specific and sufficient skills for entering a particular occupation.

AAS/AS: Associate in Applied Science degree/Associate in Science degree. 

CCC: College Credit Certificate. This refers to a technical certificate program less than 60 hours in length and is part of an AAS or AS program.

Reference Paradigms
The Division of Career and Adult Education subscribes to two major paradigms relating to learning: Bloom’s Taxonomy and Webb’s Depth of Knowledge. These models are very comprehensive; however, the salient points of each are described below. Although you are not expected to become an expert at applying these models, the importance of being familiar with them cannot be understated.
Bloom’s Taxonomy
Most individuals involved in creating or reviewing curriculum frameworks are familiar with this landmark taxonomy, although primarily with how it applies to the cognitive domain. In his taxonomy, Bloom actually identifies three distinct domains of learning: cognitive, affective, and psychomotor. The characteristics of each domain are unique. Being able to correctly identify the proper domain for a standard is critical to ensuring that standards and benchmarks are properly aligned with the behavior learners are expected to exhibit as a result of instruction. This alignment is dependent upon the verb used to describe the behavior.

Cognitive Domain: This domain of learning is by far the most common and involves knowledge and the development of intellectual skills. This includes the recall or recognition of specific facts, procedural patterns, and concepts. There are six major categories, which are listed in the table below in order, starting from the simplest behavior to the most complex. The categories can be thought of as degrees of difficulties. That is, the first one must be mastered before the next one can take place.

Category	Example and Key Words*	
Knowledge: Recall data or information.	Examples: Identify the types of computers used in business. List the shop safety rules.
Key Words: define, describe, identify, label, list, match, name, outline, recall, recognize, reproduce, select, state. 	
Comprehension: Understand the meaning, translation, interpolation, and interpretation of instructions and problems. State a problem in one's own words. 	Examples: Describe the differences among the types of computers used in business. Translate an equation into a computer spreadsheet.
Key Words: classify, convert, defend, distinguish, estimate, explain, extend, generalize, infer, interpret, paraphrase, predict, rewrite, summarize, translate.	
Application: Use a concept in a new situation or unprompted use of an abstraction. Applies what was learned in the classroom into novel situations in the work place.	Examples: Determine the bandwidth requirements for a computer configured for business. Use a manual to calculate an employee’s vacation time. 
Key Words: apply, change, compute, construct, demonstrate, discover, manipulate, modify, operate, predict, prepare, produce, relate, show, solve, use.	
Analysis: Separates material or concepts into component parts so that its organizational structure may be understood. Distinguishes between facts and inferences. 	Examples: Select the most appropriate computer for a specific business application. Prioritize a series of tasks to minimize work delays. Proofread a complex report.
Key Words: analyze, break down, compare, contrast, diagram, differentiate, discriminate, distinguish, identify, illustrate, infer, outline, relate, select, separate.	
Synthesis: Builds a structure or pattern from diverse elements. Put parts together to form a whole, with emphasis on creating a new meaning or structure.	Examples: Design a computer network for optimum performance. Create a company operations or process manual. Modify a business process to improve efficiency.
Key Words: categorize, combine, compile, compose, create, design, devise, explain, generate, modify, organize, plan, rearrange, reconstruct, relate, reorganize, revise, rewrite, summarize, write.	
Evaluation: Make judgments about the value of ideas or materials.	Examples: Validate the performance of a computer network. Rank candidates according to qualifications. Defend a project budget.
Key Words: appraise, compare, conclude, contrast, criticize, critique, defend, discriminate, evaluate, explain, interpret, justify, rate, summarize, support.	
* A more comprehensive list of verbs for this domain is available at the end of this document.	

Affective Domain: This domain of learning is perhaps the most challenging domain for reviewers and developers because it focuses on the manner in which we deal with things emotionally, such as feelings, values, appreciation, enthusiasms, motivations, and attitudes. Since learning in this domain is not directly observable, the difficulty lies in determining how the learning might be manifested in an observable behavior. The following table shows the five major categories, listed from the simplest behavior to the most complex:

Category	Example and Key Words*	
Receiving Phenomena: Awareness, willingness to hear, selected attention.	Examples: Listen to others with respect. Listen for and remember the name of newly introduced people.
Key Words: accept, ask, choose, describe, follow, give, hold, locate, select, show interest.	
Responding to Phenomena: Active participation on the part of the learners. Attends and reacts to a particular phenomenon.  Learning outcomes may emphasize compliance in responding, willingness to respond, or satisfaction in responding (motivation). 	Examples:  Participate in group discussions.  Conform to new processes. Practice safe work habits.
Key Words: answer, assist, comply, conform, discuss, greet, help, obey, perform, practice, present, report, respond, select, tell.	
Valuing: The worth or value a person attaches to a particular object, phenomenon, or behavior. This ranges from simple acceptance to the more complex state of commitment. Valuing is based on the internalization of a set of specified values, while clues to these values are expressed in the learner’s overt behavior and are often identifiable. 	Examples:  Subscribes to the democratic process. Demonstrate sensitivity toward individual and cultural differences. Proposes a plan for social improvement. Assume responsibility for personal performance. 
Key Words: complete, differentiate, initiate, invite, join, justify, propose, select, share, study, work.	
Organization: Organizes values into priorities by contrasting different values, resolving conflicts between them, and creating a unique value system.  The emphasis is on comparing, relating, and synthesizing values. 	Examples:  Alter team assignments to balance freedom and responsible behavior. Defend the role of systematic planning in solving problems. Adhere to professional ethical standards.  
Key Words: adhere to, alter, arrange, combine, defend, explain, formulate, generalize, identify with, integrate, organize, relate to. 	
Internalizing values: Has a value system that controls their behavior. The behavior is pervasive, consistent, predictable, and most importantly, characteristic of the learner. Instructional objectives are concerned with the student's general patterns of adjustment (personal, social, emotional).	Examples:  Display confidence in leading group activities. Show self-reliance when working independently.  Influence peers to work together toward a common goal. Change behavior when presented with new alternatives. 
Key Words: act, display, influence, listen, modify, propose, qualify, question, revise, serve, solve, verify.	
* A more comprehensive list of verbs for this domain is available at the end of this document.	

Psychomotor Domain: The psychomotor domain of learning includes physical movement, coordination, and use of the motor-skills. Development of these skills requires practice and is measured in terms of speed, precision, distance, procedures, or techniques in execution. The seven major categories are listed in the table below from the simplest behavior to the most complex:

Category	Example and Key Words	
Perception: The ability to use sensory cues to guide motor activity.  This ranges from sensory stimulation, through cue selection, to translation.

Note: There are some that argue that this should be a domain unto itself.	Examples:  Detect non-verbal communication cues. Estimate where a ball will land after it is thrown, then move to the correct location to catch the ball. Adapt a recipe based on the smell and taste of food. Adjust the height of the forks on a forklift by comparing where the forks are in relation to the pallet.

Key Words: choose, describe, detect, differentiate, distinguish, identify, isolate, relate, select.	
Set: Readiness to act. It includes mental, physical, and emotional sets. These three sets are dispositions that predetermine a person’s response to different situations (sometimes called mindsets).	Examples:  Knows and acts upon a sequence of steps in a manufacturing process.  Recognize one’s abilities and limitations. Shows desire to learn a new process (motivation). NOTE: This subdivision of Psychomotor is closely related with the "Responding to phenomena" subdivision of the Affective domain. 

Key Words: begin, display, explain, move, proceed, react, show, state, volunteer.	
Guided Response: The early stages in learning a complex skill that includes imitation and trial and error. Adequacy of performance is achieved by practicing.	Examples:  Perform a mathematical equation as demonstrated. Follow instructions to build a model. Respond to hand-signals of instructor while learning to operate a forklift. 

Key Words: copy, trace, follow, react, reproduce, respond	
Mechanism: This is the intermediate stage in learning a complex skill. Learned responses have become habitual and the movements can be performed with some confidence and proficiency. 	Examples:  Use a personal computer. Repair a leaking faucet. Drive a car.

Key Words: assemble, calibrate, construct, dismantle, display, fasten, fix, grind, heat, manipulate, measure, mend, mix, organize, sketch.	
Complex Overt Response: The skillful performance of motor acts that involve complex movement patterns. Proficiency is indicated by a quick, accurate, and highly coordinated performance, requiring a minimum of energy. This category includes performing without hesitation, and automatic performance. For example, players often utter sounds of satisfaction or expletives as soon as they hit a tennis ball or throw a football, because they can tell by the feel of the act what the result will produce.	Examples:  Maneuver a car into a tight parallel parking spot. Operate a computer quickly and accurately. Display competence while playing the piano.

Key Words: assemble, calibrate, construct, dismantle, display, fasten, fix, grind, heat, manipulate, measure, mend, mix, organize, sketch.

NOTE: The Key Words are the same as Mechanism above, but will have adverbs or adjectives that indicate that the performance is quicker, better, more accurate, etc.	
Adaptation: Skills are well developed and the individual can modify movement patterns to fit special requirements.	Examples:  Respond effectively to unexpected experiences.  Modify instruction to meet the needs of the learners. Perform a task with a machine that it was not originally intended to do.

Key Words: adapt, alter, change, rearrange, reorganize, revise, vary.	
Origination: Creating new movement patterns to fit a particular situation or specific problem.  Learning outcomes emphasize creativity based upon highly developed skills.	Examples:  Construct a new method to improve an existing mechanical process. Devise a way to extract DNA from microscopic trace samples. Create a new gymnastic move.

Key Words: arrange, build, combine, compose, construct, create, design, initiate, make, originate.	
* A more comprehensive list of verbs is available at the end of this document.	
Webb’s Depth of Knowledge (DOK)
This particular paradigm is far less known than is Bloom’s Taxonomy; however, it is sometimes confused with the latter due to a somewhat similar structure. There are however two significant differences that set them apart: 1) Webb’s DOK is a descriptive hierarchy, not a taxonomy, and 2) Webb’s DOK focuses on complexity, one aspect of rigor. These may seem like very fuzzy distinctions, however, the descriptions of the four DOK levels that follow will clarify the distinctions. It is important to remember that each of the four Webb’s DOK levels reflect progressively increased complexity. Unlike Bloom’s Taxonomy, the verb is not the distinguishing factor.  Rather, the context of the verb is how one delineates between the different DOK levels, each of which basically describe and show the progression of the rigor of what is being taught and learned. Students reach the next higher DOK level after mastering a lower DOK level.

Literature has shown, and it is becoming more widely recognized, that students exposed to CTE programs of study tend to perform consistently better on state-based standardized tests such as FCAT. Florida used Webb’s DOK paradigm to ensure alignment between assessment items and the Next Generation Sunshine and Common Core State Standards. Ensuring alignment is, in fact, the primary intent of the Webb’s DOK paradigm. Given the connection between assessments and industry expectations, it is easy to see how an awareness of Webb’s DOK paradigm can help ensure that CTE program standards reflect a progressively more complex and demanding array of expectations from our students while remaining aligned with industry expectations. This will ensure that our curriculum frameworks will be supportive of Florida’s Next Generation Sunshine and Common Core State Standards, and the constructs of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). 
DOK Level 1 – Recall: This level applies to items that involve simple knowledge. There is little comprehension involved at this level, no complexity, and no depth. It involves recall, rote response, and only a very basic, surface knowledge of material. 
Examples of DOK Level 1 Activities	
•	Recall elements and details of story, structure, such as sequence of events, character, plot, and setting.
•	Conduct basic mathematical calculations.
•	Label locations on a map.
•	Represent in words or diagrams a scientific concept or relationship.
•	Perform routine procedures like measuring length or using punctuation marks correctly.
•	Describe the features of a place or people.	
DOK Level 2 – Skill/Concept: This level involves students beginning to apply skills and processing concepts involving more comprehension. At this level, students interpret material and make simple decisions about how to approach a problem. They do such things as infer, conclude, compare, summarize, and determine relationships (cause/effect, etc.). The level of complexity is still relatively low.
Examples of DOK Level 2 Activities	
•	Identify and summarize the major events in a narrative.
•	Use context cues to identify the meaning of unfamiliar words.
•	Solve routine multiple-step problems.
•	Describe the cause/effect of a particular event.
•	Identify patterns in events or behavior.
•	Formulate a routine problem given data and conditions.
•	Organize, represent, and interpret data.	
DOK Level 3 – Strategic Thinking: At this level, students begin to analyze, evaluate, reason, and plan. While some of these activities also occur at DOK Level 2, the complexity is much deeper at this level. For example, students may compare/contrast ideas within a single reference at DOK Level 2, but at DOK Level 3, they would be expected to compare/contrast ideas among two or more references. Students also begin to deal with abstractions and open-ended conclusions at this level and are able to support their thinking.
Examples of DOK Level 3 Activities	
•	Support ideas with details and examples 
•	Use voice appropriate to the purpose and audience.
•	Identify research questions and design investigations for a scientific problem.
•	Develop a scientific model for a complex situation.
•	Determine the author’s purpose and describe how it affects the interpretation of a reading selection.
•	Apply a concept in other contexts	
DOK Level 4 – Extended Thinking: At this, the highest DOK level, student activities involve much higher-level thought processes and skills, such as activities requiring them to synthesize, hypothesize, evaluate, and analyze material. Their grasp of knowledge is deep. With higher-level thinking being absolutely central, students’ interaction with material is in-depth, complete, and purposeful. For example, students might be involved in activities such as writing in-depth, multi-paragraph persuasive essays with thesis statements, evidence, examples, and complex reasoning. 
Examples of DOK Level 4 Activities	
•	Conduct a project that requires specifying a problem, designing and conducting an experiment, analyzing its data, and reporting results/solutions.
•	Apply mathematical model to illuminate a problem or solution.
•	Analyze and synthesize information from multiple sources.
•	Describe and illustrate how common themes are found across texts from different cultures.
•	Design a mathematical model to inform and solve a practical or abstract situation.

Review Guidelines
When reviewing or creating standards and benchmarks in CTE curriculum frameworks, it is very important to ensure that each standard or benchmark is descriptive of what the student will be able to do. To be effective, all standards and benchmarks must reflect high quality in terms of relevance, rigor, clarity, and specificity. Further, verbs used in standards and benchmarks should be appropriate based on paradigms. Adverbs and adjectives should be used to indicate complexity of the behavior. 
Rigor & Relevance:
Standards within a curriculum framework are intended to collectively describe the outcomes of a block of instruction designed to meet expectations of knowledge or skill competencies. To be effective, they must be relevant and have the appropriate level of rigor. Consider the following standards:

1.	Describe the steps for driving a car. (Cognitive Domain)
2.	Drive a car. (Psychomotor Domain)
3.	Drive an Indy car at 220 miles per hour. (Psychomotor Domain)

In the above standards, each may be appropriate to the instruction, but will depend on the actual expectations. Note how both relevance (describe versus drive) and rigor (drive an Indy car versus just a car) can be communicated very easily. The last statement further expands the complexity by indicating a condition of performance. It is imperative to ensure that the standards reflect the appropriate rigor and are relevant to the desired expectation. Consider another set of standards:

1.	Identify the operating system on a computer. (Cognitive Domain – Knowledge)
2.	Describe various computer operating systems. (Cognitive Domain - Comprehension)
3.	Distinguish between server and client operating systems. (Cognitive Domain - Analysis)

These three standards are all in the cognitive domain, but both rigor and relevance are different in each. They are in fact progressive in their rigor based on their category. Again, their relevance may be entirely appropriate and is dependent on the expected performance. It may be that these would be most useful as benchmarks that culminate in a standard like “Recognize various operating systems.” Consider this last set of standard statements:

1.	Demonstrate comprehension and communication skills.
2.	Demonstrate operating systems.
3.	Use technology to enhance communication effectiveness.

Each of these three statements gives an impression of both rigor and relevance, but fail on both counts. In the first standard, it is unclear as to what constitutes comprehension or what form of communication is to take place. In the second standard, it is unclear what is really being demonstrated and when can a student complete the standard. In the last standard, it is unclear what technology is to be used (string and tin cans can improve communication) and “enhance” is a nebulous term. The following are possible ways in which the statements might be improved:

1.	Write a clear and well-organized research paper, incorporating information from various media.
2.	Create a file structure that reflects folders appropriate to your document needs.
3.	Use an online collaborative portal to complete a document review process.
Clarity:
As you can see from the above, when standards are not written clearly, both rigor and relevance get lost and ultimately the program loses its consistency when implemented in different schools or districts. This is because while teachers appreciate flexibility in their teaching strategies, they really need absolute clarity about the expected outcomes. In most cases, selection of the appropriate verb will be sufficient to ensure clarity of a standard, but this is not always the case. There are many other pitfalls that should be avoided and a couple of the more common ones are described below.
Avoiding Vague and Meaningless Verbs
As a rule of thumb, verbs should be observable and measureable, such as “Create a spreadsheet showing…” or “Apply standard practices in…” or “Develop a communication plan that…”, etc. Vague or meaningless verbs in standards should be avoided altogether or corrected when found. Phrases such as “Demonstrate an understanding of…” or “Develop an awareness of…” or “Demonstrate proficiency…” are examples of phrases that need to be rewritten. 

Perhaps one of the most misused words in writing standards is “demonstrate.” The very nature of a standard or benchmark implies that some form of demonstration will take place. To include the word “demonstrate” in a standard is generally redundant and can, unless special care is taken, render the standard vague. Unless the act of demonstrating is the true expected behavior, “demonstrate” should be avoided. One example of an appropriate use would be “Demonstrate the proper technique for folding the United States flag.” In this case, it would be the technique that is being assessed, not the ability to fold the flag.

To ensure the verb is appropriate and clear, remember that verbs indicate some form of action. The action in a standard should be observable where one can tell when one student has mastered the standard and another has not. If it is not clear how one would distinguish between two students “demonstrating” the action, then it needs to be fixed.
Avoiding Fluff

Avoid falling prey to the “fluff” syndrome when writing standards. Evidence of this syndrome is indicated in standards that read more like vision statements or lofty goals rather than straightforward outcomes. For example, consider the difference between the following two versions of the same standard:

Version #1:	Incorporate knowledge gained from individual assessment and job/career exploration to design an individual career plan that reflects the transition from school to work, lifelong learning, and personal and professional goals.

Version #2:	Create a career plan that reflects personal and professional goals.

In the actual framework, the competencies needed to achieve either of these versions are contained in the underlying benchmarks. Version #1 simply has a lot of fluff that interferes with understanding what is really expected of the student. 

Here’s another:

Version #1:	Apply mathematical operations and processes as well as financial planning strategies to commonly occurring situations in the workplace to accomplish job objectives and enhance workplace performance

Version #2:	Use the appropriate mathematical process and tool to solve a complex business problem.

In this example, including the reasons, rationale, or justification for the behavior serves only to cloud the vision of what a student is expected to do. Version #2 leaves no doubt as to what is expected from the student.
Specificity:
Just as it is critical that standards be written to clearly communicate expectations of student behavior, they must also be specific enough to remove any vagueness or ambiguity. Consider the following actual statement from a current framework:

Use database, spreadsheet, presentation software, scheduling, and integrated software packages to enhance communication.

At first read, this may appear to be sufficiently descriptive. If it existed as a standard, it would probably suffice but could be improved. In actuality, it exists in a framework as a benchmark statement, which renders it far too broad to be of any use to a teacher. If we expect a student to use a particular software application to “enhance” communication, we need to say specifically what they should be able to do…and with what. One would be hard-pressed to describe how they could determine whether a student had successfully met the standard. This statement would be far more useful and relevant if it were written as a standard with benchmarks providing the specifics or details, such as:

01.0	Use software applications to enhance communications.
01.01	Use spreadsheet software to graphically represent the relationship of profit versus loss for multiple divisions.
01.02	Use scheduling software to create a Gantt chart depicting a project schedule showing lead and lag times.
01.03	Use presentation software to create a slide presentation that includes backgrounds, images, animations, slide transitions, and a video clip.

In some cases, the standard is sufficiently descriptive, but the specificity is lacking in the benchmarks. Consider the following example of an existing standard with corresponding benchmarks:
	
01.00	Perform e-mail activities–The student will be able to:

01.01	Describe e-mail capabilities and functions.
01.02	Use the Internet to perform e-mail activities.

As with the previous example, this gives an initial impression of being sufficiently descriptive. However, it only has the student “describing” email capabilities and functions, and then “using” the Internet. There is no indication as to what “activities” a student will be capable of performing. When this was discussed with teachers, the following was more reflective of what students were expected to do (not a complete list):

02.00	Perform e-mail activities–The student will be able to:

02.01	Send emails to both single and multiple addressees, with and without attachments.
02.02	Send emails using the carbon copy and blind copy functions.
02.03	Reply to emails using the Reply To and Reply To All functions.
02.04	Reply to emails using a format different than the received format.
02.05	Forward emails to multiple recipients.
02.06	Create mail distribution lists.
02.07	Create new folders for email routing.
02.08	Create message rules for email filtering and routing.
02.09	Use the email client to schedule a meeting and invite attendees.

The need for and importance of specificity in our standards and benchmarks cannot be understated. Without specificity, both rigor and relevance are all but lost. Our curriculum frameworks are supposed to be sufficiently broad enough to permit individual variances from one implementation to the next without sacrificing the instructional integrity of the program. Only by ensuring clarity and specificity in our standards and benchmarks can the frameworks reflect the rigor and relevance consistently, regardless of where the program is implemented.
Additional Considerations
Vendor Neutrality
The standards contained in our curriculum frameworks do not prescribe how instruction should be delivered nor do they limit the flexibility of the districts in implementing a program in the context of local conditions. For instance, the Network Support Services program may be offered in one district using Cisco curriculum to lead students to CCNA certifications. Another district may offer the same program, but use Microsoft curriculum to lead students to MCSE certifications. The decision to use one or the other is a district decision and is typically based on the skills sought by local employers. Only by ensuring that our frameworks are vendor neutral can this level of flexibility be maintained. 

It would be unrealistic to expect the standards to be absolutely 100 percent neutral. In fact, it is sometimes necessary for standards to be based on a specific vendor product or technology. This can also be necessary when a program is based on or modeled after a national program or one that must adhere to national standards for accreditation (e.g., NATEF). However, to the maximum extent possible, standards should be written to focus on the expected behavior or task a student needs to be able to perform, not necessarily based on one vendor’s product. 
Jargon
Virtually every CTE program will have its own collection of terminology, typically based on industry usage. It is important for students to become familiar with the “language” of their career path, and it is equally important that their teachers know it. The use of jargon and acronyms in standards is permissible. When acronyms are used, however, they are typically introduced when first used. A classic example is WYSIWYG, short for What You See Is What You Get. The target audience of curriculum frameworks is primarily district personnel and teachers, however counselors and parents are also frequent readers. While a teacher reading WYSIWYG in the framework for their program would be expected to know what it means, one should presume that not all readers will have the same level of familiarity. 

Essentially, use technical jargon and acronyms when appropriate, but always consider the reader.

(Taxonomy and Domain Charts attached below)

Bloom’s Taxonomy Verb List	
Cognitive Domain	
Knowledge	Comprehension	Application	Analysis	Synthesis	Evaluation	
arrange
cite
define
describe
duplicate
draw
enumerate
identify
index
indicate
label
list
match
meet
memorize
name
order
outline
point	quote
read
recall
recite
recognize
record
relate
repeat
reproduce
review
select
state
study
tabulate
trace
write	add
approximate
articulate
associate
characterize
cite
clarify
classify
compare
compute
contrast
convert
defend
describe
detail
differentiate
discuss
distinguish
elaborate
estimate
example
explain	express
extend
extrapolate
factor
generalize
give
identify
illustrate
indicate
infer
interact
interpolate
interpret
locate
observe
paraphrase
picture graphically
predict
recognize
restate
review
rewrite
subtract
summarize
trace
translate
understand
visualize	acquire
act
adapt
administer
allocate
alphabetize
apply
articulate
ascertain
assess
assign
attain
avoid
back up
calculate
capture
change
chart
choose
classify
collect
complete
compute
construct
contribute
control
customize
demonstrate
depreciate
derive
determine
diminish
discover
dramatize
draw
employ
establish
examine
exercise
explore
expose
express
extend
factor	figure
graph
handle
illustrate
implement
inform
instruct
interconvert
interpret
investigate
manipulate
modify
operate
operationalizes
participate
personalize
plot
practice
predict
prepare
preserve
price
process
produce
project
protect
provide
relate
report
round off
sequence
show
simulate
sketch
solve
subscribe
tabulate
teach
transcribe
transfer
translate
use
utilize
write	analyze
appraise
audit
blueprint
breadboard
break down
calculate
categorize
characterize
classify
compare
confirm
contrast
correlate
critique
derive
detect
diagnose
diagram
differentiate
discriminate
dissect
distinguish
document
ensure
examine
experiment
explain
explore
figure out
file
focus	group
identify
illustrate
infer
interpret
interrupt
inventory
investigate
lay out
limits
manage
maximize
minimize
optimize
order
outline
point out
prioritize
proofread
query
recognize
relate
select
separate
size up
subdivide
train
transform	abstract
adapts
animate
anticipate
arrange
assemble
budget
categorize
code
collaborate
combine
communicate
compile
compose
construct
cope
correspond
create
cultivate
debug
depict
design
develop
devise
dictate
enhance
explain
express
facilitate
format
formulate
generalize
generate
handle
hypothesize	import
improve
incorporate
individualize
initiate
integrate
interface
intervene
invent
join
lecture
model
modify
negotiate
network
organize
outline
overhaul
plan
portray
prepare
prescribe
produce
program
progress
rearrange
reconstruct
redesign
refer
reinforce
relate
reorganize
revise
rewrite
specify
structure
substitute
summarize
validate
write	appraise
argue
assess
compare
conclude
contrast
counsel
criticize
critique
decide
defend
determine
discriminate
estimate
evaluate
explain
grade
hire	interpret
judge
justify
measure
predict
prescribe
rank
rate
recommend
reframe
release
select
summarize
support
test
validate
value
verify	

Psychomotor Domain	
activate
adjust
align
apply
arrange
assemble
balance
break down
build
calibrate
change
clean
close
combine
compose
connect
construct	correct
create
demonstrate
design
dismantle
drill
fasten
fix
follow
grind
grip
hammer
heat
hook
identify
load
locate	loosen
make
manipulate
mend
mix
nail
operate
paint
press
produce
pull
push
remove
repair
replace
rotate	sand
transfer
troubleshoot
tune
turn on/off
type
saw
sharpen
set
sew
sketch
start
stir
use
weigh
wrap	
	
Affective Domain	
Receiving	Responding	Valuing	Organization	Internalizing	
accept
ask
choose
describe
follow
give
hold
locate
select
show interest	accept responsibility
answer
assist
comply
conform
discuss
enjoy
greet
help
obey
perform
practice
present
report
respond
select
tell	associate with
assume responsibility
believe in
be convinced
complete
describe
demonstrate
differentiate
have faith in
initiate
invite
join
justify
participate
propose
select
share
subscribe to
work	adhere to
alter
arrange
classify
combine
defend
establish
form judgments
generalize
identify with
integrate
organize
relate to
weigh alternatives	act
change behavior
develop code of behavior
develop philosophy
display
influence
judge problems/issues
listen
propose
qualify
question
serve
show 
solve
verify