My first reaction to Bloom's Digital Taxonomy? It certainly reads as if it was created in the digital age.
|
| Web Editor Needed! |
The text is filled with typos. There are missing words. There is a lack of focus, as if the author had pooled all of his resources, then put them together without transitions or putting on his editing cap. I felt like I was reading one giant text message or blog.
That being said, there is some interesting info to be found here within all of the clutter (Forgive any typos you might find within the copy-and-pasted italicized text. Those are the author's. Any other mistakes, though, are mine.):
* "
This taxonomy is not about the tools and technologies, these are just the medium, instead it is about using these tools to achieve, recall, understanding, application, analysis, evaluation and creativity."
Other than the fact that this list of what using these tools does includes verbs
and nouns (for example: to achieve and to analysis), it is a valid point. Learning how to use one specific tool should not be the focus, since the plethora of tools now available changes daily. Students should be taught the how and why to use tools, so they can judge on their own which tools are appropriate for the task that is facing them that specific moment. Becoming an expert in one tool to the exclusion of other tools risks being outdated and useless the next day.
* "
You can not understand a concept if you do not first remember it, similarly you can not apply knowledge and concepts if you do not understand them."
Ah, Bloom at its Zen best. I feel like a grasshopper at the feet of the master, or Skywalker being told for the first time by Obi Wan Kenobi, "Luke, feel the force." This is what many teachers seem to forget about teaching students -- they must confirm that their students understand
and remember the concept being taught. Too many teachers test and move on, meaning the students will not be able to build on the knowledge in which they have been relentlessly drilled. Students also forget this while they study. Rote memorization may get you through that test today, but you will blow any practical application of that knowledge being used in real life.
* "
[The] value of the collaboration can vary hugely. This is often independent of the mechanism used to collaborate. Also collaboration is not an integral part of the learning process for the individual, you don't have to collaborate to learn, but often your learning is enhance by doing so. Collaboration is a 21st Century skill of increasing importance and one that is used throughout the learning process. In some forms it is an element of Bloom's and in others its is just a mechanism which can be use to facilitate higher order thinking and learning."
I particularly want to point out the section that says that collaboration "is not an integral part of the learning process for the individual" and that "you don't have to collaborate to learn." I emphasize this as a shoutout to all those students who absolutely hate group work, because they feel as if they do all the work. Too many teachers (and lazy students) seem to think that group work is a be-all and end-all way to teach. I do agree, though, that "learning is enhanced by doing so" and that it can be used as a "mechanism [to] facilitate higher order thinking and learning." Group work should, in general, not be graded (other than as perhaps a participation grade), unless the teacher is absolutely positive that the work reflects the actual skill and understanding levels of
all the students involved.
* "
In Bloom's taxonomy the lower order thinking skills are the remembering and understanding aspects. 21st Century pedagogy and learning focuses on moving students from Lower Order Thinking Skills (LOTS) to Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS)."
This is one aspect that the Digital Taxonomy has nailed. For the child who is a "Digital Native," it is important to be pushed from simple LOTS to HOTS. These children already know how to use most of these tools and are absorbing far more information than we (as teachers) ever were even presented with at an equivalent age. That does not mean they are smarter than we were; it just means that they have greater access to a vast wealth of knowledge, and must be trained how to collate, comprehend, and utilize that information (HOTS).
* "
The growth in knowledge and information means that it is impossible and impractical for the student (or teacher) to try to remember and maintain all of the current relevant knowledge for their learning."
 |
| Why memorize tables? |
I have been saying this since I was in high school back in the 1970s. For example, in my trigonometry class, I was forced to memorize log, sine, and co-sine tables. This angered me. Why should I be forced to memorize something that A. Was already in a table that I could reference as needed; and B. I could find out in seconds on my Texas Instruments 80 calculator (the height of technology at that time!). Sure ... I could (and maybe even should) memorize the formulas to calculate log, sine, co-sine, but there was no need at all to memorize the answers as long as
I knew where to go to get the answers. My time was much better spent learning how to use those concepts for real-life applications (a concept that I admit I never got). This applies to most fields of study. Why should I memorize an encyclopedia worth of knowledge? I never will be successful in that task, and trying to do so will keep me from learning the "how" and "why." As long as I know what I do no know -- and know where to go look for what I do not know -- I will be OK. (That's my own Zen statement for the day!)
Well, enough rant for today. I give credit to Andrew Churches, for realizing that a new taxonomy was needed in this digital era in which our children are being schooled. I just wish to volunteer my services as an editor the next time he does a revision!
P.S. Churches can be reached at
achurches@kristin.school.nz
Works cited
Text:
Churches, A. (2007). "Bloom's Digital Taxonomy." Web.
http://edorigami.wikispaces.com/file/view/bloom%27s+Digital+taxonomy+v3.01.pdf
Images:
Samuel Tan at en.wikipedia [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0) or GFDL (www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)], from Wikimedia Commons http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/Writing_Magnifying.PNG
By en:user:345Kai
(en:Image:Triangle-with-cosines.png) [GFDL (www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)], via Wikimedia Commons