Starting in graduate school, so much of what I have done in education has been grounded in Bloom's taxonomy. Today I came across this in my inbox, questioning the validity of Bloom in a digital age http://mimanifesto.wordpress.com/is-blooms-taxonomy-now-redundant-in-a-new-information-age/?goback=.gde_2811_member_240622477 I would love to know what others think. Personally, I see the easy access to knowledge freeing us to spend more time on Bloom's higher cognitive skills. It seems that the taxonomy is actually more relevant than ever.

Pamela Auburn
Pamela Auburn
68505 Activity Points

This is a very interesting topic that I have been wondering on myself. I have noticed that some teachers have new technology blooms posters in their classroom. I will do my own research on the subject but great resources attached on this thread.

Karen Drexler
karen Drexler
1825 Activity Points

Hi Pam, Interesting article. There has been some revision to Bloom's Taxonomy taking into consideration 21st Century Thinking Here is the revision background http://cft.vanderbilt.edu/teaching-guides/pedagogical/blooms-taxonomy/#2001 The Revised Taxonomy (2001) [i]A group of cognitive psychologists, curriculum theorists and instructional researchers, and testing and assessment specialists published in 2001 a revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy with the title A Taxonomy for Teaching, Learning, and Assessment. This title draws attention away from the somewhat static notion of “educational objectives” (in Bloom’s original title) and points to a more dynamic conception of classification. The authors of the revised taxonomy underscore this dynamism, using verbs and gerunds to label their categories and subcategories (rather than the nouns of the original taxonomy). These “action words” describe the cognitive processes by which thinkers encounter and work with knowledge:[/i] Are you familiar with Kathy Schrock's Guide to Everything? Here is her take on this new version Cogs of Cognition I was recently reflecting on the triangular shape the Bloom's taxonomies utilize.  [i]Since the cognitive processes are meant to be used when necessary, and any learner goes up and down the categories as they create new knowledge, I was thinking another type of image might be more explanatory.Here is my draft of the idea of the "interlocking of the cognitive processes" or the "Cogs of Cognition". [/i] [url=http://www.schrockguide.net/bloomin-apps.html]http://www.schrockguide.net/bloomin-apps.html [/url]

Arlene Jurewicz-Leighton
Arlene Jurewicz Leighton
42070 Activity Points

Pam, The link you included did not take me to the correct page. I received an error message. I have reposted the link here: http://mimanifesto.wordpress.com/2013/04/01/im-not-really-sold-on-blooms-taxonomy/ I see the value of both arguments. While Bloom's has been revised to meet the needs of our current education system - changing students/changing world, it is still primarily shown in a pyramid format. I have attached my collection on Bloom's to this thread. In the traditional or revised Bloom's, each "step" is separate and apart from the step above or below it. Is thinking really that way? Should we teach students to think in "levels"? I really like the cogs or gears shown in the blog. Today's students need to learn to think with creativity or within a "creating" context. Education needs to be more than just level steps of demonstrated ability. Education should create a product, and it should encourage students to see the interconnection between levels or ideas - how they can all work together. Sadly, I blame high stake testing for the focus on "set steps to demonstrating understanding." I like the "creating" cog - it would encourage the develop of innovators - not just good test takers. However, I also noted that while the "creating" cog is new, as is the concept of gears or cogs, the basis of Blooms is still evident. Perhaps what we are seeing is not Blooms being replaced, but Blooms being improved upon to meet the needs of our 21st century learners. As in education or learning, we build upon what we know...changing it as we go, making it better. What I see is an improved Bloom's. Thoughts? Ideas?


Bloom Taxonomy Collection
(4 items)
New_Blooms_Taxonomy_Verb_Matrix.doc
     -User Uploaded Resource
New Bloom's Taxonomy Comparison Chart
     -User Uploaded Resource
Comparing_Bloom_to_New_Bloom_Verb_Chart.pdf
     -User Uploaded Resource

Susanne Hokkanen
Susanne Hokkanen
79060 Activity Points

Thank you for sharing your collection on Bloom's taxonomy. I'm having trouble viewing the collection. Can you sharing it with me?

Jenny Hwang
Jenny Hwang
4755 Activity Points

Hi Sue, Thank you for sharing the Bloom's Taxonomy collection. I continue to find this useful for my students to power up their thinking and writing using the higher level verbs. Carolyn

Carolyn Mohr
Carolyn Mohr
80318 Activity Points

If you click on Pam's URL, you originally get an Oops message. However if you click on Homepageon the "error" message, it takes you to the site--at least id did for me.

Kathy Sparrow
Kathy Sparrow
44753 Activity Points

Thank you for sharing! This is very helpful and informative.

Kristin Zama
Kristin Zama
3225 Activity Points

Pamela,

Since implementing the Common Core, we have focused more on Webb's Depth of Knowledge. So, much of our focus has been in increasing rigor, and working on levels 3-4 (which correspond to the higher levels of Bloom's)

All the best,

Naomi Beverly

Naomi Beverly
Naomi Beverly
19130 Activity Points

I am a student teacher, so I don't have the years of teaching experience under my belt, but i am so thankful that my professors taught me about bloooms taxonomy. When I am planning lessons to teach to my kiddos I am pull out that sheet, and plan higher level questions as well as questions on the lower end of the spectrum. I want my kiddos to think, so I think that it is good.

Lydia Cotton
Lydia Cotton
2320 Activity Points

Lydia- We are evaluated in our district on our incorporation of Bloom's higher level questions/thinking(which translate to the DOK levels 3-4). So, it's the expectation, and I am so happy you are beginning your career with this! All the best, Naomi Beverly

Naomi Beverly
Naomi Beverly
19130 Activity Points

Our district has expanded from Bloom's Taxonomy to Depth of Knowledge. We are gearing our test and lessons to DOK levels of 2-4.

Kathleen Heikkinen
Kathleen Heikkinen
835 Activity Points

this is very informative thanks for sharing

Carina Hernandez
Carina Hernandez
1845 Activity Points

Hello there, As a pre-service teacher, this is the first time I see Bloom's Taxonomy as a clog rather than a hierarchy and it makes a lot of sense. I have very little to no experience (the only experience I have is the required field hours), but I have noticed that the Bloom's pyramid can be misleading. I understand that creating is the most advanced level, yet it is the smallest in the pyramid. Remembering, being the most basic level is the biggest. The Blooms Taxonomy created with Clogs demonstrates that they all interconnect yet creating is the most complex of all. Cora

Cora Fernandez
Cora Fernandez
4540 Activity Points

Hello all! These are very interesting arguments considering I am a student teacher right now, and a lot of our methods classes are still very pro-Bloom's taxonomy. I was going to ask: How could Bloom's be applied usefully with these new NGSS standards? Any articles, or resources are appreciated! Thank you!

Jenna Bucklew
Jenna Bucklew
655 Activity Points

Post Reply

Forum content is subject to the same rules as NSTA List Serves. Rules and disclaimers