eduMOOC New taxonomy

I have just come across this critique  on Bloom’s Taxonomy. Brenda commented:

The categories or “levels” of Bloom’s taxonomy (Knowledge, Comprehension,
Application, Analysis, Synthesis, Evaluation) are not supported by any research
on learning. The only distinction that is supported by research is the distinction
between declarative/conceptual knowledge (which enables recall,
comprehension or understanding), and procedural knowledge (which enables
application or task performance).

Bloom’s Taxonomy, is a classification of learning objectives within education proposed in 1956 by a committee of educators chaired by Benjamin Bloom.

Photo: wikipedia

Based on wikipedia,  Bloom’s Taxonomy divides educational objectives into three “domains”: CognitiveAffective, and Psychomotor (sometimes loosely described as knowing/headfeeling/heart and doing/hands respectively). Within the domains, learning at the higher levels is dependent on having attained prerequisite knowledge and skills at lower levels.

Exhibit memory of previously-learned materials by recalling facts, terms, basic concepts and answers
  • Knowledge of specifics – terminology, specific facts
  • Knowledge of ways and means of dealing with specifics – conventions, trends and sequences, classifications and categories, criteria, methodology
  • Knowledge of the universals and abstractions in a field – principles and generalizations, theories and structures

Questions like: What are the health benefits of eating apples?

Here is an attempt to apply Bloom’s Taxonomy in education.

How about the concept of knowledge? If knowledge is defined here, involves the recall of specifics and universals, the recall of methods and processes, or the recall of a pattern, structure, or setting. (Bloom et al. 1956 p 201), then surely knowledge COULD BE DEFINED by recalls.

This new taxonomy provides a comprehensive classification about learning based on a constructivist approach.  I am however, interested in knowing how it was developed.

In times of information abundance, how should high-order knowledge – such as thinking and reflection be re-defined?

The revised Taxonomy (refer to Rote versus meaningful learning) here is based on a broader vision of learning that includes not only acquiring knowledge but also being able to use knowledge in a variety of new situations.

In our digital era of learning, is this classification good enough to classify the educational objectives in such ways?

I have once shared that learning in a digital world involves individuals networking with others, including cooperation and collaboration in groups or networks, and so there are certain areas which require both individual, collective and collaborative efforts in order to achieve the learning goals. Would we need to extend this learning theories and Taxonomy and Blogging and Blooms to ensure that complexity is considered in education and learning?

My interests focus on creation of artifacts – where create involves putting elements together to form a coherent or functional whole; reorganizing elements into a new pattern or structure.

For example, to create an artifact like blog post would require one to go through a whole cycle of collecting and aggregating information (via iGoogle,  RSS, email, Google +, FB, Twitter, OL Daily, etc.), curating them (via some of the above tools, or with Scoopit, Pearltrees,, Netvibes).  This would then provide the sources of information for the writing of blog posts, or the re-posting or feed-forwarding of posts or artifacts aggregated or curated.

As a blogger, I would then peruse the content, analyse, and evaluate each part of the artifact or resources in terms of its relevance and values to a subject, and how each part of it would be useful for the inclusion of my blog post, by remixing, repurposing and re-creating or re-writing parts of the posts that resonate with my experience or could add to my knowledge.

Finally, I would then post the created blog post as artifacts (videos, pictures, links) onto appropriate social media of my choice – FB, Twitter, Google +, Delicious, or any other new media that I found useful.  Also, I would comment on others’ blog posts, or those posts on FB, Moodle Forum, or Retweet on Twitter, based on an analysis, evaluation and sharing of my ideas/posts in a similar way to the blogging – experience, thinking, reflection and action process.

In reflection, the above blogging and commenting “routine” would quite likely involve the application of knowledge, and an indepth thinking and reflection throughout the process.

I reckon blogging would satisfy the educational objectives set along the three “domains”: CognitiveAffective, and Psychomotor.

I think we need a new taxonomy which could cover the complex learning and digital literacy more comprehensively.

Postscript: This paper on Learning together in community: collaboration online sounds useful.