Blog Archive

Wednesday, March 3, 2010

Visual Bloom's discussion @crafty184 and @fisher1000 got me thinking...

http://digigogy.blogspot.com/2009/02/digital-blooms-visual.html
I hope @crafty184 doesn’t mind me pulling this comment, but it got me thinking about how we oversimplify sometimes and complicate others. When I have shared this resource with teachers, they fall in love with this image, I think it’s because we like things to be in a nice and neat package. Explaining, discussing, and analyzing Blooms and Instructional Design during PD is enjoyable by some educators but not all, and then couple that with the depth of knowledge discussions and you may clear a room.

So, when some, not all, teachers see this they recognize some web 2.0 tools they are using or have heard about, and they see the Anderson Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy model which still doesn't necessarily connect, design, delivery, and assessment.

I guess my thoughts would be that if you share these images, that it lead to some conversation around what Higher and Lower order Thinking Skills really means and how can we differ and deliver our instruction in ways that lead to application, synthesis, and ownership of learning and knowledge. As Chris has said before, Bloom's is a way of categorizing, we shouldn't make it in to something that it's not. If we want to really dive deeper into design and tech integration, it would be a good idea if we spent some time rediscovering UbD http://ubdeducators.wikispaces.com/ and Multimedia Learning
As always I would love to hear what others think and how they address e-learning design and delivery.
Here is Chris’ comment and the site that sparks this discussion….http://digigogy.blogspot.com/2009/02/digital-blooms-visual.html You can find Chris' blog at www.crucialthought.com
“I think this is a misapplication. Bloom's Taxonomy was never intended for this, and therefore does not fit. Sure, you *can* create using some of those tools, but creating something out of nothing was not the intent of Bloom's Taxonomy (nor the Anderson revision, as you've used here). The taxonomy was designed to categorize test questions.
As in, when one learns about haiku poems, the creating section would require one to write their own haiku. An oversimplified answer, but nonetheless valid because it requires the synthesis of the knowledge learned about what constitutes a haiku.
Me simply creating a wiki and putting digital graffiti on it does not satisfy the requirements of Bloom's, I'm afraid.
Not to say the list of applications isn't useful, but take Bloom out of the picture and just call it a cloud of 2.0 or something.
-Chris Craft"
For more look at Paula White's wiki crowdsourcing the rubrics to align with the tools



Post a Comment