|
|
Post by rachelgoodbar on Mar 21, 2016 12:45:29 GMT -5
The article argues that Bloom's Taxonomy is almost upside down, knowledge can't be the base because it implies that critical thinking is basically gathering up facts and casting judgement. While it agrees that students need knowledge to start off of they also need it as they move throughout levels. Knowing this how would you get your students to think critically? Do you think Bloom's taxonomy has it right?
|
|
|
|
Post by wmm12d on Mar 21, 2016 16:48:12 GMT -5
Seems to me that Bloom was referring to knowledge, initially, as "raw data", not a "refined" or final stage of knowledge as the author of the article appears to imply. Under this assumption, I think bloom got it right. I just think that analysis and synthesis should come before apply because one cannot effectively apply a concept without first analyzing and synthesizing its implications.
|
|
|
|
Post by wmm12d on Mar 21, 2016 17:03:36 GMT -5
...and clearly,at the top should be knowledge. A revised pyramid renames the first stage as "remembering". This then allows for knowledge to be moved to the top.
|
|
|
|
Post by kcornelison93 on Mar 23, 2016 13:11:32 GMT -5
A proposed revision is an interesting idea, wmm. I know there was one after the original was proposed. But does the pictograph even have to be a pyramid? It seems like, depending on what the teacher wants as an outcome, different stages could lead to different skills (and therefore the "pyramid" could really just be a flowchart or something of that nature).
|
|
|
|
Post by rachelhinder on Mar 23, 2016 16:21:17 GMT -5
I agree with the above thought, "why does it have to be a pyramid?" With this article in mind, I think it all depends on the end goal (i.e. am I simply trying to help students understand or do I want them to apply this knowledge somehow?). I understand what this article was trying to say, but I think it was looking too much into what Bloom meant by knowledge. In my classroom assessment class, we were taught the revised version of Bloom's pyramid which renames knowledge with remembering. With these new terms in mind, I think Bloom's pyramid is correct. Even this article agreed that students need to remember the information before you can expect them to do things with new information. Just because a student doesn't have all the background knowledge doesn't mean they aren't using higher order thinking. They are using it through the information they have. We cannot hold students accountable for information they have not been taught (i.e. Jacob vs the grad students).
|
|
|
|
Post by meghanpotter on Mar 23, 2016 17:20:22 GMT -5
I like the article, but at the same time, I'm very much a fan of Bloom's taxonomy, and I think it works well as is. Obviously, it's just a framework, and it depends how you use it, but in my mind it works like this- first you know a fact (Heathcliff and Cathy are the main characters in Wuthering Heights), then you understand the info behind that fact. (Heathcliff is an orphan, adopted by Cathy's father and Cathy loves Heathcliff, but is expected to marry into a different social class than Heathcliff's). Then you can apply the knowledge (This class struggle, coupled with their pride, causes the conflict). You can then analyze their characters further (typing Heathcliff as a Byronic hero) and evaluate other characters of this nature (Who are some other Byronic heroes?) and finally you can create your own writing, or a product of understanding. You can't just jump right in and start talking about the meaning of the themes in a book if you don't know a list of what the themes are. The first step has to be knowing basic facts. The basic facts make up the skeleton of knowledge. The higher up the pyramid you go, the more layers of understanding you have, and the fuller your knowledge of the subject.
|
|
|
|
Post by brittanysinitch on Mar 24, 2016 12:01:41 GMT -5
There is this really great article that I read about getting our students to think critically. (http://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/effective-teaching-strategies/the-instructors-challenge-moving-students-beyond-opinions-to-critical-thinking/)
Critical thinking is defined as a reflective and reasonable thought process embodying depth, accuracy, and astute judgment to determine the merit of a decision, an object, or a theory (Alwehaibi, 2012). Creative thinking involves analysis, evaluation, and a synthesizing of facts, ideas, opinions, and theories. Possessing the capacity to logically and creatively exercise in-depth judgment and reflection to work effectively in the realm of complex ideas exemplifies a critical thinker (Carmichael & Farrell, 2012).
This article provides a lot of different ideas:
- Providing timely, positive, yet constructive feedback
- Expressing agreement, appreciation, and encouragement
- Posing challenging questions to students
- Teaching the value of comparing and contrasting; everything is not right or wrong
- Openly praising high quality work so other students can see what excellent work resembles
- Encouraging students to provide problem-solving responses as opposed to offering textbook definitions
- Keeping the discussion within the context of the subject matter; herd in the strays
Yes, these are all general terms that we have learned, but it is hard to sometimes remember to do these things when EVERYTHING is happening in a classroom. We should always be aware of the students interest and incorporating what is best for them into our lesson plans.
|
|
|
|
Post by morgan on Mar 27, 2016 15:42:46 GMT -5
Brittany, that is a great article! I think it's interesting when it says, "A student’s critical thinking skills can be strengthened when an instructor probes the student’s viewpoint on the discussion topic by seeking additional clarification, explanation, and justification from the student," so it's almost as if the students are taking what they know ("knowledge" of some kind- either from experience, what they have read, what someone has taught them, etc.) and then they are applying it to a situation to form an opinion or stance on something and then, to get to even higher levels of critical thinking, they have to justify why they think that way and what are the facts or the KNOWLEDGE that backs that up?
To me, this reinforces the original Blooms Taxonomy pyramid because I think if you didn't have the knowledge it would be extremely difficult to critically think about things.
|
|
|
|
Post by colemanaj1776 on Mar 28, 2016 13:17:33 GMT -5
I see that bloom got it right. Knowledge as the base still contributes to the other levels. I don't see how one could analyze an issue/ topic if they have not even the most basic understanding of the raw data. Brittany your article is very useful!
|
|
|
|
Post by colemanaj1776 on Mar 28, 2016 13:46:01 GMT -5
I see that bloom got it right. Knowledge as the base still contributes to the other levels. I don't see how one could analyze an issue/ topic if they have not even the most basic understanding of the raw data. Brittany your article is very useful! The reading says that history is more than facts. I believe that history is more than the facts, but the base facts allow us to make judgements and interpretations. "Knowledge possessed does not automatically mean knowledge deployed". It is my belief that knowledge cannot be deployed if it is not even possessed. |
|
