#PLENK2010 Mastery Learning and Bloom’s Taxonomy

I read this blog and the videos on Blogging and Blooms with great interests.

Here is my response:

Thanks Angela for this interesting post. I think Bloom’s model could be useful for structured Mastery Learning, based on an identification of cognitive entry behaviour, affective entry characteristics and Quality of Instruction, that are highly relevant in classroom teaching and assessment.  The digital model developed by Andrew Churches sounds well, and have attempted to modify the Taxonomy to cater for the digital literacies.   May I respond with my previous post on mastery-learning-blooms-hypothesis-and-taxonomy-and-connectivism?

I have been thinking if the notion of create is interpreted differently by educators and learners.  At times, create could come first for a learner, especially when creating a blog (and a blog post), or a video on Youtube or vimeo, bliptv, or a piece of creative writing, and if this sounds like the highest “skills set” under the Bloom’s Taxonomy, then Evaluate, Analyse seem to be lower in the Taxonomy as compared to Create.  Would this be rightly interpreted?  Besides, a learner could be learning a task whilst tackling a problem (problem or project based learning) in a digital world, which could include participation in project, communication and collaboration in wiki, interacting with others through blogs and forum postings, and creation of artefacts (blog posts for reflection, collection, videos production, repurposing and remixing of multimedia – for digital story telling etc.), personal thinking and reflection using reflexive techniques.  These require a mix of skills and literacies and so trying to identify them into the strict taxonomy may sometimes lead to constraints on educators in setting the tasks (questions) and the learners in the creation of artefacts.

How would educators overcome these?  I think the structured taxonomy model (revised) one is more suitable for assessment, but needs to be re-conceptualised in the case of learning, especially when we try to identify a digital project in terms of the competencies which are embedded in it.  That’s where a connectivist model could be useful to connect the various skills and competencies, and delineate the relationship so both educators and learners could understand how they could achieve their learning through learning by action, with projects, problems, rather than the mere instruction. What do you think?

Renewed thanks for your stimulating post.



3 thoughts on “#PLENK2010 Mastery Learning and Bloom’s Taxonomy

  1. Pingback: Tweets that mention #PLENK2010 Mastery Learning and Bloom’s Taxonomy | Suifaijohnmak's Weblog -- Topsy.com

  2. Pingback: #PLENK 2010 On Learning Theories and Learner Taxonomy | Suifaijohnmak's Weblog

  3. Pingback: Competence and Ca Model | Learner Weblog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s