“Nature does not make boundaries
obvious”
(Corno et al.,
2002)
“Classification is arguably one of the
most central and generic of all our conceptual
exercises…without classification, there could be no advanced
conceptualization, reasoning, language, data analysis, or for that
matter, social science research.”
(Bailey, 1994)
The Need for an Organizational
Taxonomy
Since the beginning of our existence, humans have
searched for order in their world. Today classification is an
“activity that is essential to all scientific work”
(Dunn & Everitt, 1982). The reliable and valid
classification of entities (e.g., those listed in Table 1) requires
a “guide” or taxonomy (Bailey, 1994; Prentky,
1994).
Taxonomies guide the choice of constructs when
conducting and synthesizing research and facilitate the evaluation
of newly proposed constructs (Corno et al., 2002). Both
taxonomic functions were judged critical for the current project
given the empirical research during the past century, which has
provided a lengthy laundry list of important learning-related
traits, abilities, and/or behaviors (Table 2), characteristics
typically studied in isolation. Table 2 is an extension
of Table 1 viz-a-viz the addition of brief subdomain
definitions. A larger and more readable version of this table
can be found in the "Key Tables and Figures" section of this
document/resource.
Some may ask if the specification of a provisional
overarching academic learner characteristic taxonomy (viz., the
MACM taxonomy) is premature. I think not. I agree with
Corno et al. (2002) who argued that:
-
“even a provisional taxonomy…is
useful. Better taxonomies will come. New assessment methods,
improved measurement models, advanced statistical techniques, new
devices for recording events during learning and problem
solving—all will contribute to better specified and more
robust constructs and construct-systems” (p.
57).
More importantly, the current literature review
identified two promising contemporary and complimentary learner
characteristic taxonomies—one overarching in scope, the other
more narrow. The integration and presentation of these models
in a single framework serves as the organizational structure for
the remainder of this document.
Both taxonomies are briefly described
next.
