About what action verbs look like, let's go to checklist item number 3: Is the ILO (Intended Learning Outcomes) reflective of the appropriate domains of learning and the levels of achievement students are expected to attain? In the previous example, we have identified multiple levels of ''know'' from an ill-defined ILO. This is related to the second thing we shall check about the verb. As we discussed in another video, there are three domains of learning: cognitive, affective, and psychomotor. They are all important to student learning and all have multiple levels. The taxonomies of the three learning domains have included many action verbs, which provide vocabularies for us to write the learning outcomes. For the students who are at the different learning stages, we could target at different levels of achievement. Choose the action verbs from that level to compose the learning outcomes. Cognitive outcomes are about the recognition of knowledge and the development of intellectual abilities. The achievement in this domain is perhaps the most common target of the learning outcomes. It can be at a ''knowledge'' level, which involves recalling information, or at ''evaluation'' level, which involves the judgment on the value of the information. If we rewrite the ill-defined ILO from the puppies' story that mentioned earlier, it can be ''the puppies will be able to describe the major steps to dig a hole''. Or ''the puppies will be able to relate the functions of the tools to the soil types and choose the right tools for the given soil types''. Or ''the puppies will be able to critically evaluate their own approaches to digging a hole and reflect on the room for improvement''. These ILOs represent different levels of expectation on students in the cognitive domain. Affective outcomes deal with the emotional aspects of learning. It is not as direct as cognitive outcomes sometimes. But it is very important to higher education too. Education should have this dimension. Using the taxonomy of this domain, we could write some affective learning outcomes for the puppies. For example, ''the puppies are able to describe at least three different ways in which other animals dig holes to demonstrate the awareness that there is more than one way to dig a hole''. Being expected to be able to list things they are introduced to, the puppies are required to achieve an outcome that is at the lowest level in the cognitive domain, knowledge. At the same time, this ILO also targets at the lowest level in the affective domain, receiving. That is to say, the puppies are expected to demonstrate an awareness of the diversity in digging holes. If the ILO is ''the puppies are able to objectively evaluate their advantages and limitations inherent in their own generic and physical conditions in digging holes, celebrate their advantages and accept the disadvantages'', that would be at the level of ''organizing''. It involves conceptualising and developing a personal value system. That is a much higher level in the affective domain. Psychomotor outcomes are about building the motor skills. In the puppies' story, there is definitely this dimension as well. Being able to ''imitate'' would be at the most basic level, which can involve puppies copying what their father does when digging a hole. A higher level in this domain can be ''the puppies will be able to dig a hole without the father's demonstration''. That is ''manipulation'', involving reproduction from the father's instruction or their own memory. Or if the ILO is ''the puppies will be able to dig holes to address their needs in daily life and based on the natural resources available'', then the puppies are expected to achieve the highest level in psychomotor domain, naturalization, an instinctive mastery of the related skills at a strategic level. One ILO can meld 2 or 3 learning domains, like some of the examples we gave just now. A cognitive outcome may have an affective aspect. The achievement of a psychomotor outcome may come with some cognitive outcomes as well. When writing the ILOs, we need to take into consideration students' levels of understanding and make sure the challenges are not too low or too high.