Bloom's (is a) Taxonomy...

Via Mia MacMeekin's "An Ethical Island" blog http://anethicalisland.wordpress.com/2013/10/08/blooms-blooming-taxonomy/

I was speaking again recently about Bloom's Taxonomy. I was at a professional development event and the topic of thinking skills came up. The conversation moved (as it seems to most of the time) to a comparison of the higher order and lower order thinking skills. I've always struggled with these terms "higher" and "lower" order. The problem I see with them in relation to Bloom's Taxonomy is that they connote a hierarchy more than a taxonomy.

tax·on·o·my

  [tak-son-uh-mee]

noun, plural tax·on·o·mies.
1. the science or technique of classification.
2. a classification into ordered categories: a proposed taxonomy of educational objectives.

taxonomy. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/taxonomy

hi·er·ar·chy

  [hahy-uh-rahr-kee, hahy-rahr-] 

noun, plural hi·er·ar·chies.
1. any system of persons or things ranked one above another.

hierarchy. (n.d.). Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hierarchy

It appears that the difference between a taxonomy and a hierarchy is in the way things are organized. In a taxonomy things are classified into some sort of order. This rings true in a hierarchy as well, but according to a ranked order of importance. A slight difference? Perhaps, but a significant difference nonetheless. As I study the diagram of Bloom's Revised Taxonomy below I have some questions. Is creating any more or less important than remembering? Is analyzing any more or less impacting that applying? To me the answer is no... each level of the taxonomy is relevant and important, and in some cases interdependent with other elements. For example, creating a colorful piece of artwork is only possible if we understand color, and remembering color as in 'ROYGBIV' helps us make creative use of the spectrum of color found in a rainbow.

Go easy on people, and hard on improving ideas...

Iconoclast:
n
One who attacks and seeks to overthrow traditional or popular ideas or institutions.

 flickr photo via NASA Goddard Photo and Video

I think we perceive the value and purpose of debate all wrong. Our tendency to take a polarized view (aka disagreement) between two sides of a concept and argue opposite sides until one "wins" the debate is perhaps less effective in today's world than it has been in the simpler, more black and white world of the past (at least from our perspective... I'm sure the world to contemporaries in history was every bit as complex to them as ours is to us today.)

In virtually every element of our human lives, decisions need to be made... politics, business, education, family, relationships... humans have been blessed with the ability to think rationally, (or perhaps cursed depending on your perspective.) This being said, so much energy and emotional investment is dedicated to the decision itself, that the nuances of the idea or concept being argued often get lost in the shuffle. This is not good. We get hung up on 'winning' our precious debate, and ultimately deny our rational thinking abilities in favor of power and control over our opponent in the debate. Nothing good comes from this phenomena in relation to the advancement of the idea or concept we should be focusing less subjectively on.

Opinions are opinions and should be stated as such; we're all entitled to them. A wise person will never argue opinions. Conversely, facts are also facts, and when stated with support, can be argued very effectively. Not all facts are opinions, and not all opinions are facts, but some of both are the other... this is where it gets convoluted. It's the grey area between opinions and facts that breeds dissension in a debate resulting in an adversarial environment; one that seldom leads to a good decision.

This post may seem inherently ironic. Here I am suggesting that iconoclastic thinking is hazardous if we intend to move ideas forward diplomatically and thoughtfully because it assumes that traditional or popular ideas or institutions are all bad, and I'm positing rather iconoclastically that traditional polarized debate is all bad, and we should radically change the way we come to decisions. I'm actually not, though. What I propose is a model of debate and decision making that involves dissonance to be sure, but also a presupposition that it is the dissonance within the argument that must be resolved, not defeated.

Dissonance is a word that connotes the unresolved or inharmonious. What if both sides of a debate focused on the resolution of the dissonant concept not by attempting to strengthen their respective positions, but rather by choosing to make their effort strengthening the positions of their opponent? I'm talking about an integrative process whereby each side of the debate looks at the positions of the other side, and  ultimately chooses to discuss each stance that would be acceptable to their side; what they could live with... a process where the dissonant nature of the argument would start to move toward the middle as opposed to the outer reaches. Unlike a battle that one side must win, and one must lose, this model suggests that it is the concept or idea that's being discussed that must win the day, or perhaps be discarded for a better one.

These are some of the thoughts I had while reading Roger Martin. For more on what he calls integrative thinking, I suggest you pick up a copy of The Opposable Mind: How Successful Leaders Win Through Integrative Thinking.

Hybrid Thinking- Why We Shouldn't Care Where Good Ideas Come From

flickr CC image via M 93

Our human tendency to debate opposing ideologies without apology until one is accepted by a majority resulting in a "winning" idea or concept is counter-intuitive to progress. On the contrary, the integrative mind understands that within the current change climate we find ourselves immersed in, our viability as a global society will depend on a synthesis of ideas that should not be considered dichotomous, but rather complementary to one another. In the context of supporting effective child development, this form of hybrid thinking will ensure that we don't miss the boat on any developing idea's potential.

By taking two or more perspectives on effective and positive child development and combining their best elements into a synthesized hybrid of all of them, a new paradigm is born, and those who brought each perspective to the process no longer operate independently and in defense of their point of view, but rather interdependently in support of each other and the best possible course of action. Don't our sons and daughters deserve our absolute best objective thinking relative to the care we provide them?

 To that end I make two suggestions... read The Opposable Mind by Roger Martin,
 and next time you find yourself in a heated debate defensively stating your
 opinion, simply stop doing it and do something very different. Instead of
 defending your position and fighting to win the battle, take a breath, think deeply
 and objectively about the issue, and then take a serious critical perspective toward
 the opposing argument, looking for any shred of a good idea or element that you
 can live with, and that may even synergize with your position. You may even want
 to suggest to your opponent that he/she does the same with your 'side' so both of
 you can see the middle ground you were both previously blind to.

 You'll be amazed at the results this strategy produces; trust me, I've tried it. You
 can do this when involved in debate over any issue, but when it comes to doing
 our best thinking relative to providing every possible outside-the-box opportunity
 for our kids to learn and grow, we can't afford to do anything less.

Oops, I Made a Mistake- Am I Still Learning?

  by  dingler1109 

A comment from Wendy Young (#Kidlutions) on a recent post I wrote, (Technology in Education- How to Support a Tip in the Right Direction), and an #edchat conversation about creating passion in students on Twitter this evening has my mind racing.

In reaction to my perspective that mistakes are an integral part of the learning process, and not to be feared, Wendy commented that,

as fear and mistakes go, "BRING IT". It is truly the best way to learn. My wish is that all teachers would learn to EMBRACE mistakes as part of the process of learning...and be able to transmit that to the next generation. Needless to say, some of the biggest mistakes have turned out to be things we might not want to live without: post-it notes, potato chips, chocolate chip cookies, velcro, etc! Some mistakes become discoveries in and of themselves!

What a truly insightful comment; one that I fully agree with. I was speaking to my class not so long ago, and it struck me as they were asking me what was going to be on the upcoming test, that they felt a compulsion to know  because they were literally afraid of getting  the answer to a question wrong. They were asking me for a study sheet to take home so they could memorize, and subsequently recall, the correct answers. I was saddened in that instant, and resolved immediately to have a conversation with the class about intelligence... what it means to me, and what I hope it will begin to mean for them.

Intelligence to me is not a thing, it's a process; one that never stops. I believe that those who are willing to submit to the fact that they don't really know much at all are the most intelligent because they have everything to learn... therein lies the process. At the core of intelligence as a process is the concept of thinking. When my class challenged me to provide a study sheet for them, I believe Benjamin Bloom was rolling over in his grave. During my conversation with the class, I explained Bloom's Taxonomy, and they were mystified... I was explaining that there are different categories of thought, and that my teaching and learning philosophy aligns more with the organizing, synthesizing, evaluating and characterizing side of Bloom's learning objectives classification. On that day in my class, my focus on the importance of teaching kids higher order thinking skills became a little sharper.

I believe a culture of learning is a culture of inquiry; one that supports discovery and values creativity. I need to create this culture in my classroom, and I think, as simple as it sounds, Bloom's Taxonomy is the place to start if I want to combat the fear my students feel toward getting stuff 'wrong.' To promote discovery and creativity I need to teach them how to advance their thinking so learning (intelligence) becomes a process for them; not a means to an end (the end being knowledge.)

How have we got to this place in education where recall of facts appears to be what kids think intelligence is? No single person, teacher, parent, school authority or even the students themselves are to blame. The problem is systemic. Schools bear the responsibility to react to perpetual changes in society. The complexities of our ever-evolving world pose an overwhelming challenge for schools to produce citizens who are prepared for them. Educators appear to have responded to this challenge by striving to create people who know. I believe what we should be doing is preparing people who know how to think.

I want my class to be filled with kids who passionately believe they have everything to learn, and that the path to becoming intelligent is paved with the ability to think without fear of mistakes. It's OK to be wrong, right?

Education Reform- How then shall we be led?

flickr CC image via bpende

**With the utmost respect, and in response to Aaron Eyler's "Some Things Educators Need to Stop Saying" post (Synthesizing Education Blog) 

With all due respect, (and I don't necessarily disagree with you,) there are many professionals among us who aren't as attuned to the realities of education reform that you allude to. The terminology, (rhetoric as you refer to it,) educators are using to attempt to make sense of the change going on around them is just that; terminology.

I personally appreciate your honesty, and I get the "good fun" element of your post, but in all seriousness, I think you illuminate a much larger and complicated issue in education. You refer to the transparency and lack of substance of statements such as "who wants to leave a child behind?" I agree; this is a feeble statement, however I also believe that our agreement on the feebleness of this statement would not be shared wholely by the rest of the audience who heard it. Here's the rub: teachers NEED to be led. Many, many teachers buy into this sort of 'rhetoric' because our North American education system has left them feeling powerless to think for themselves, be creative and serve their students instinctually. The focus on externally placed standards of practice and curriculum in North America has become so pervasive that teachers have literally lost the ability to think for themselves, and even worse, lost the priveledge of sharing their professional insight with the continental institution of educational planning and policy-making that assigns these controls.

So, although I agree with your tongue-in-cheek commentary on the educational version of stating the obvious, (the 'child-centered classroom' is another favorite of mine,) I really believe that teachers latch onto these statements hanging on for dear life because they have been left feeling under-valued, controlled and manipulated to the point where any statement about education perceived to be well-meaning and designed to influence thought and perspective becomes popular.

I also wholeheartedly agree that it's time to just get on with things in education. However, to do this, a revised form of leadership would suit the task. I share your fondness for integrative thinking, and honestly (perhaps simplistically) this concept is where we need to begin. There have been many reforms, statements, programs, catch-phrases and movements in education... not all of these were, or are unsound. What we need to do is combine what has been good for education in the past with the best of what forward-thinking educators can come up with today, and design our own destiny.

This is possible.