|
Post by katelyn on Mar 21, 2016 13:35:04 GMT -5
The first time I was introduced to Bloom’s was last summer, in Classroom Management. While I liked its simplicity and the aid it lent to writing lesson plan objectives, I disliked that it categorized thinking into different levels of difficulty, and therefore, associated negative connotations with “knowledge.” This ties in with Wineburg's opinion of knowledge at the base of the pyramid. I also don’t love how it classifies multiple choice questions as easy; we all know well-written multiple choice questions can be just as difficult as short-response questions, and easier than poorly worded short response. What are your thoughts on Bloom’s?
|
|
mju13
New Member
Posts: 13
|
Post by mju13 on Mar 21, 2016 14:16:18 GMT -5
I think Bloom's Taxonomy is a great tool and that the categorization of thinking into different levels of difficulty isn't so much focused on associated connotations of knowledge but on the outcomes that are expected from a particular task. I agree that multiple choice questions, if written well, can be even more challenging than a poorly written short response, but what I think Bloom's Taxonomy is trying to get at is that recall of a fact doesn't demand higher level cognitive thinking. Students may be able to recall something without understanding its purpose or how to apply and synthesize the information. The more "difficult" thinking requires students to show understanding of content in a well versed manner (application, creation, assimilation) instead of recall or recognition of information. Something that is often seen in science classrooms is the fact that students will memorize information and once they're done with it, they forget it. Sometimes, students may be able to recall or recognize something but they won't remember the relevance or how it works. If students had been introduced to a concept in a way in which they could make it their own (creation and synthesizing) then it's more likely they would be able to later remember its importance (i.e. through student-centered instruction). Don't get me wrong, it's important that students should be able to recall something and remember information, but if that's all they're doing at the end of every class, are they really fulfilling the lesson's objectives?
|
|
|
Post by kaylawebb on Mar 22, 2016 9:21:45 GMT -5
I really like the Bloom's Taxonomy, I think it is a good way to get teachers to think about what they expect from their students. they create measurable objectives and they spark new ideas when writing lesson plans. It is really simple and easy to use. I actually liked how it is separated into different levels of thinking. It helps teachers add more depth to their lessons and objectives. I think that students need to be able to do more than just recall and they certainly should not do it for every task. They should have deeper learning than that.
|
|
|
Post by loganc on Mar 22, 2016 15:35:12 GMT -5
Similar to the rest of these posts, I also really like Bloom's taxonomy! However, I find it especially frustrating though when there are words like "observe" because that is not something that I think is measurable! Other than that, I am a complete believer in bloom's taxonomy words because they are a great aid in creating lesson plans with higher level thinking skills! Also, I agree that multiple choice questions, if written well, can require students to use higher level thinking!
|
|
|
Post by ashleyygreen12 on Mar 23, 2016 8:53:59 GMT -5
I'm not a huge fan of Bloom's Taxonomy. It's unrealistic in the sense that it creates a specific order in which students should process things. This disregards the outer lying circumstances that affect students (and all human beings) learning. On paper, they look great. They're organized in this pretty list and are categorized in this "great" way but when applying it to actual lessons in the classroom, actual students, I can see how it would miss the mark. For example, there's this assumption that students don't already know how to critically think (that they must be taught how to do so), we have to give them the steps of critical thinking before they practice critical thinking (this is what blooms taxonomy suggests) but on the contrary, Sam Wineburg & Jack Schneider wrote an article called "Inverting Bloom's Taxonomy" that delved into how the reverse process of Bloom's taxonomy would be beneficial in a history classroom (starting with evaluation). Having students pull knowledge through their evaluation on a given historical document. After reading the article, I started thinking about how we use this order of thinking because it seems accurate that you would first have to introduce something through rote memorization before asking students to think about it but in everyday activities is that the case? I think it's fair to assume that we already look at the world critically so it's fair to assume that the order of Bloom's Taxonomy is, in fact, not the only order of learning/acquisition.
|
|
|
Post by angelawithee on Mar 23, 2016 12:18:46 GMT -5
I like Bloom's and think that it can be useful to categorize difficulty in assignments, however I believe that it can be easily manipulated and not used properly. By this I mean that with just a few strategic switching of words put into different levels, the teacher can say that they are using a higher level of thinking for essentially the same activity. I also disliked knowledge being put at the base and first level of the taxonomy. Knowledge should be the umbrella term that covers all of these levels, I don't agree that it should be strictly put to the bottom when it is needed for every single level.
|
|
|
Post by alexandrajohnson on Mar 23, 2016 18:13:02 GMT -5
I think Bloom's Taxonomy is very helpful to an extent. I believe that I can always use Bloom's as a guide but it is important for me to stay true to my own gut feelings and observations from my own classroom. I think Bloom's is a way to guide me to see how cognitively demanding my teaching is. Even more so, task analysis techniques (like those of Stein and Smith) are very helpful in analysing teaching skills and how effective a specific method is.
|
|
miko
New Member
Posts: 13
|
Post by miko on Apr 5, 2016 12:11:54 GMT -5
I agree with most of the comments stated about the usefulness of blooms taxonomy as being a good tool to produce meaningful lesson plans. For me it is also a great tool to use as I map out what I would like students to be able to do in my classroom for example if we are covering the issue of voting rights for felons I would like for the students to understand the gravity of the issue, express how it may or may not affect them personally but to also be able to produce positive legislation/policy that could be implemented in the future. Coming up with ideas for new legislation would show that they have mastered the benchmark and have an in-depth understanding of voting rights.
|
|
|
Post by SophinaA on Apr 16, 2016 6:49:39 GMT -5
I'm not a huge fan of Bloom's Taxonomy. It's unrealistic in the sense that it creates a specific order in which students should process things. This disregards the outer lying circumstances that affect students (and all human beings) learning. On paper, they look great. They're organized in this pretty list and are categorized in this "great" way but when applying it to actual lessons in the classroom, actual students, I can see how it would miss the mark. For example, there's this assumption that students don't already know how to critically think (that they must be taught how to do so), we have to give them the steps of critical thinking before they practice critical thinking (this is what blooms taxonomy suggests) but on the contrary, Sam Wineburg & Jack Schneider wrote an article called "Inverting Bloom's Taxonomy" that delved into how the reverse process of Bloom's taxonomy would be beneficial in a history classroom (starting with evaluation). Having students pull knowledge through their evaluation on a given historical document. After reading the article, I started thinking about how we use this order of thinking because it seems accurate that you would first have to introduce something through rote memorization before asking students to think about it but in everyday activities is that the case? I think it's fair to assume that we already look at the world critically so it's fair to assume that the order of Bloom's Taxonomy is, in fact, not the only order of learning/acquisition. SO I know that I am not in this group but I was reading through and I actually think that this is really interesting. I had always thought some of the same things that you did and it is nice to see that I'm not alone. I mean, I think Bloom's does a good job of simplifying everything and trying to get students on the right track of general growth but I agree that not all students go in this specific order. As i have moved along in my education, I have made my own theory that these are the general levels of growth but everybody fluctuates through them and it by no means has to follow a specific order.
|
|
|
Post by sarahaubreyr on Apr 17, 2016 13:22:48 GMT -5
I'm not a huge fan of Bloom's Taxonomy. It's unrealistic in the sense that it creates a specific order in which students should process things. This disregards the outer lying circumstances that affect students (and all human beings) learning. On paper, they look great. They're organized in this pretty list and are categorized in this "great" way but when applying it to actual lessons in the classroom, actual students, I can see how it would miss the mark. For example, there's this assumption that students don't already know how to critically think (that they must be taught how to do so), we have to give them the steps of critical thinking before they practice critical thinking (this is what blooms taxonomy suggests) but on the contrary, Sam Wineburg & Jack Schneider wrote an article called "Inverting Bloom's Taxonomy" that delved into how the reverse process of Bloom's taxonomy would be beneficial in a history classroom (starting with evaluation). Having students pull knowledge through their evaluation on a given historical document. After reading the article, I started thinking about how we use this order of thinking because it seems accurate that you would first have to introduce something through rote memorization before asking students to think about it but in everyday activities is that the case? I think it's fair to assume that we already look at the world critically so it's fair to assume that the order of Bloom's Taxonomy is, in fact, not the only order of learning/acquisition. YES! I completely LOVE this. It is completely absurd to develop a practice that tells students in how they are supposed to process things. I have never really understood this. Students process things in their own unique way. It may not be the way you want them to, but at least they are processing it. If we want students to learn as much as they can we cannot continue to shovel things down their throat because we think they already should have processed it. Sometimes, taking your time teaching (if allowed or have the time) is the best way to help students achieve the best.
|
|