kasee
New Member
Posts: 21 
|
Post by kasee on Mar 22, 2016 18:22:44 GMT -5
I liked the concept of flipping the pyramid with Bloom's Taxonomy. I like the theory behind it and can see what the author of this article was getting at, and I think he raised some really good points. It's simply not realistic to think that our students will come in with all of the head knowledge from the very beginning. I liked when the author said this, "Putting knowledge at the base implies that the world of ideas is fully known and that critical thinking involves gathering facts to cast judgement." He goes on to say that it distorts why we think in the first place. I agree with this statement and think that we're almost setting the student up for failure or disappointment if the student doesn't come into our classroom with all the head knowledge before even being taught anything. Knowledge acquisition is a process and many steps need to precede it, in my opinion. What do y'all think about the notion of flipping Bloom's Taxonomy?
|
|
|
|
Post by ronettekortbein on Mar 23, 2016 13:41:29 GMT -5
I also liked the idea of flipping Bloom's Taxonomy. We are currently also discussing Bloom's Taxonomy in my Teaching ESOL class, and we are discussing it as a hierarchy of thinking. The top of the pyramid is "higher order" thinking where as the bottom part of the pyramid is "lower order" thinking. It is a good thing to know these different categories to use for teaching in the classroom, but it is important to know that only a certain level of higher order thinking is possible when knowledge is limited. It is not necessarily the pinnacle to be able to use higher order thinking. Knowledge should be continually gained so that critical thinking skills can be developed over time. For example, the article compared the analysis skills of a high school student in AP history to the analysis skills of graduate students. Although both had knowledge and were able to analyze a historical document, that graduate students were able to look at the document with a wider scope because they had more knowledge, which included the state of America and attitudes toward immigrants at the time. The high school student had limited knowledge while the graduate students were able to think about the document historically. I think the difference between these two types of students was that the graduate students were literate in history due to years of knowledge gained along with experience. The high school student has the ability to be historically literate, but only if he is able to turn Bloom's taxonomy upside down and gain the information needed to be able to think critically using a wide range of information. Does anyone else have thoughts about how Bloom's Taxonomy may relate to literacy?
|
|
|
|
Post by lindseynharrell on Mar 23, 2016 13:46:12 GMT -5
I don't know if I see think these things should be ordered in any type of period at all. I think that all parts of Bloom's taxonomy are fluid and moving, going together and working together with no specific order. Students come into a classroom with a vast array of experiences and knowledge bases and they work simultaneously to evaluate, analyze, synthesize, apply, and comprehend in order to make learning happen. Learners learn at different paces and in different ways and I think that a definitive step-by-step list is limiting to the world of education.
|
|
|
|
Post by hannahhiester on Mar 23, 2016 14:59:28 GMT -5
I tend to agree with this sense of learning as a fluid process and that even if we categorize the different levels as higher or lower order thinking, they don't stand in isolation and feed into one another. With the 5E learning cycle in science teaching, we expect students to 'Explore' in the second stage and draw on their current knowledge and ability to ask questions or synthesize information without necessarily having the new knowledge. Then we introduce/discuss the new knowledge in later stages of the 5E once they have built a foundation which required higher and lower order thinking as defined by Bloom.
|
|
|
|
Post by taylorbelleglaze on Mar 23, 2016 15:29:34 GMT -5
"Knowledge possessed does not automatically mean knowledge deployed." When thinking of Bloom's Taxonomy pyramid, we first notice that knowledge is at the bottom of the totem pole. Is this in the right place? In Wineburg's article, there is discussion whether this idea of the pyramid being flipped is a more accurate way of learning. Having a basis of knowledge is crucial, but I do not agree with knowledge being at the bottom of the pyramid. Gaining knowledge is a continuous process and it is not just handed to you in one sitting or even in one week of learning. When examining Bloom's pyramid, it makes the most sense to me that all of these sects are combined together rather than completely separated. While the idea of flipping the pyramid allows for a deeper understanding of learning, I believe the pyramid should take out the sect of knowledge all together. Knowledge should be the continuous idea behind every level in Bloom's taxonomy so it does not need to be established at the bottom or at the top, in my opinion. Every student learns differently, but when students are able to apply ideas and knowledge they already have, it becomes easier for them to strengthen their other sects of the pyramid as knowledge is gained. (I hope that makes sense!)
|
|
jklee
New Member
Posts: 20
|
Post by jklee on Mar 23, 2016 15:39:31 GMT -5
I also agree with Lindsey's and Hannah's ideas about the fluidity of learning. The concepts in Bloom's Taxonomy are not mutually exclusive ideas. I think that the definitions can be subjective. While there is a definitive line between higher order and lower order thinking, I would argue that you can have higher order thinking within the lower levels of Bloom's pyramid. Analysis can be a part of application or comprehension. Is not building upon knowledge the "highest aim" of instruction, as the author of the paper said? To build upon that idea, every student learns in different ways and might take a different approach to learning than the traditional pyramid. I really loved this quote from the article: "The pyramid treats knowledge with all the glamour of a dank concrete basement - necessary for a house, but hardly the place to host honored guests."
|
|
|
|
Post by janinesherman on Mar 23, 2016 16:37:04 GMT -5
While reading these comments I thought of our lessons plans and the blooms taxonomy verbs that are required to use for objectives. I can spend 20 minutes struggling to find the "right" verb and it feels that this hierarchy/ reducing the lesson to one word takes away from my lesson as a whole. If I am teaching and building a foundation and students are learning, they are doing more than just "define" "recognize" or "match". Learning is fluid, dynamic, and continuous and these different "levels" of learning do work together. A foundation of knowledge is necessary to lead up to application type lessons, but I feel frustrated when I see that knowledge based lesson plans are not as important or useful.
|
|
|
|
Post by parkerh13 on Mar 23, 2016 19:16:52 GMT -5
I really like the idea that Bloom's Taxonomy shouldn't have a hierarchy because ideas are fluid. If we really think about it, you can use something from every level in one lesson or even conversation. Just because you aren't always using higher order thinking skills does not mean that your knowledge or your thinking has stopped. I think that if we view all of them as important and encourage movement from both sides then students will have a better sense of where they want to be and what is appropriate rather than us telling them or requiring them to think in a certain way.
Janine, I really like what you said about one word taking away from your lesson because you have to find the "perfect" word from the hierarchy in order for it to be "right." I think as a teacher that is a great way to explain why the hierarchy doesn't necessarily work for the students we are teaching and they shouldn't be reduced to one word on the hierarchy either. They are using so many aspects of their brain and of their prior knowledge that if we can justify reducing them to a word we could justify reducing them to an SAT score.
|
|
|
|
Post by keturahyoung on Mar 30, 2016 15:51:26 GMT -5
I really like the idea that Bloom's Taxonomy shouldn't have a hierarchy because ideas are fluid. If we really think about it, you can use something from every level in one lesson or even conversation. Just because you aren't always using higher order thinking skills does not mean that your knowledge or your thinking has stopped. I think that if we view all of them as important and encourage movement from both sides then students will have a better sense of where they want to be and what is appropriate rather than us telling them or requiring them to think in a certain way. Janine, I really like what you said about one word taking away from your lesson because you have to find the "perfect" word from the hierarchy in order for it to be "right." I think as a teacher that is a great way to explain why the hierarchy doesn't necessarily work for the students we are teaching and they shouldn't be reduced to one word on the hierarchy either. They are using so many aspects of their brain and of their prior knowledge that if we can justify reducing them to a word we could justify reducing them to an SAT score. Hannah, I also liked the aspect of the fluidity of ideas as opposed to a hierarchic. Yes, some "levels" of Bloom's Taxonomy can be more involved or more difficult (defining a term vs. creating or evaluating something using a particular term). I think its kind of weird you can change the level of hierarchy just by changing one word in an objective. My classroom assessment instructor also discussed with us that just because a specific word falls under a specific level in Bloom's Taxonomy, doesn't mean that it actually demonstrates that level of Bloom's Taxonomy. For example, if an objective was: Students will be able to create a sentence using a verb in past tense. One would think this task would fall into the creation level (the highest level of Bloom's Taxonomy), however, it could fall int the category of application because the student would have to apply the skills they have learned about verbs to make a sentence. I know that probably wasn't helpful in terms of understanding, but that the point. The level are so blurred and fluid. |
|
|
|
Post by chelseahickox on Apr 19, 2016 9:52:52 GMT -5
I really like the idea that Lindsey had in saying that learning is fluid and constant and not necessarily sectioned into these limited levels. I see learning ass it happens, and also know from experience that many times in the process of learning many of Bloom's levels overlap or jump from one to the other. I think of how often when assigned to 'create' something, which would be at the top tier of the traditional bloom's taxonomy, one thinks through the recall process and analyzes information to get to the end product. The point is, they very much run together and overall I think shape us to be thinkers that are able to be challenged. I also was interested in Janine's comment that while a foundation of knowledge is necessary to get to application type lessons, it's frustrating to be confined to have 'knowledge' focused lessons. I wonder why we can't have students get to the knowledge part by 'doing'. Throw them into the application, and they'll fumble around and probably get a little frustrated but they'll also then have the opportunity to succeed! Maybe it's a crazy thought but, you learn by failure, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by alicenburnett on Apr 20, 2016 12:42:26 GMT -5
Chelsea I think you do learn by failure! I always craved being told I was wrong and where I was doing. If that happened, I wouldn't keeping making the same lame mistake. I think at a certain age level you could just throw your kids into the application aspect, depending on your students. I think we've been told this a lot in the past year in our classes. Just tell them to do the thing!
|
|
|
|
Post by hannahhiester on Apr 21, 2016 10:10:23 GMT -5
I would tend to agree that you learn by failure, provided you are prepared to learn from it and get constructive feedback in order to help you improve. I'm taking Ed Psych this semester and we have been talking about how students who have mastery goals tend to be better at coping with failure and attending to feedback as they see them as opportunities to learn and improve, as opposed to those who have performance goals and/or an 'intelligence is fixed' mindset and so see failure as something they can't change.
|
|
