We noticed you haven't updated your profile picture recently. We've upgraded your profile to allow for richer hi-resolution images. We invite you to take a moment to upload a new image that represents you in the community!
Wed May 15, 2013 8:25 AM
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
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.
68500 Activity Points
Fri Nov 07, 2014 4:07 PM
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.
1825 Activity Points
Thu May 16, 2013 10:48 AM
Interesting article. There has been some revision to Bloom's Taxonomy taking into consideration 21st Century Thinking
Here is the revision background
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".
Arlene Jurewicz Leighton
41755 Activity Points
Wed Jul 17, 2013 5:15 PM
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-so...-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.
79040 Activity Points
Fri Sep 19, 2014 1:56 PM
Thank you for sharing your collection on Bloom's taxonomy. I'm having trouble viewing the collection. Can you sharing it with me?
4755 Activity Points
Sat Sep 07, 2013 3:04 PM
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.
79588 Activity Points
Tue Mar 25, 2014 3:27 PM
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.
44438 Activity Points
Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:59 PM
Thank you for sharing! This is very helpful and informative.
3225 Activity Points
Fri Sep 19, 2014 5:30 PM
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,
19130 Activity Points
Thu Sep 25, 2014 11:22 PM
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.
2320 Activity Points
Fri Sep 26, 2014 8:18 AM
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,
19130 Activity Points
Sat Oct 11, 2014 11:21 AM
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.
835 Activity Points
Sat Oct 18, 2014 1:38 AM
this is very informative thanks for sharing
1845 Activity Points
Tue Mar 10, 2015 3:12 PM
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.
4540 Activity Points
Tue Apr 28, 2015 10:36 PM
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!
655 Activity Points
Forum content is subject to the same rules as NSTA List Serves. Rules and disclaimers