Via Mia MacMeekin's "An Ethical Island" blog http://anethicalisland.wordpress.com/2013/10/08/blooms-blooming-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.
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.
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.
So when I listen to conversations about "higher" and "lower" order thinking skills, I am careful to remember that these designations are in reference to levels of sophistication in thinking as opposed to one being better than the other. The notion,which I have heard often, is that lower order thinking is bad and needs to be balanced off with the better, higher order thinking. I disagree. Each of the classified levels of Bloom's Taxonomy are important in its own way. I look at the taxonomy as a constructivist model. Each level builds and supports the others as we move from the simple foundation of memory to the heightening sophistication of the other elements, (again, not to suggest higher is better, just different.) I look at is as a heuristic model allowing learners to be mindful of what element they choose for specific learning purposes.
My conclusion is that kids need to be taught to view the elements of Bloom's Taxonomy as tools they can choose to negotiate a learning challenge, depending on the nature of particular challenges. Each element is a specific tool, and some learning challenges require a combination of tools to get the job done. Looking at each element of Bloom's Taxonomy as mutually exclusive seems to me not a good way to use any of them.
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.
So when I listen to conversations about "higher" and "lower" order thinking skills, I am careful to remember that these designations are in reference to levels of sophistication in thinking as opposed to one being better than the other. The notion,which I have heard often, is that lower order thinking is bad and needs to be balanced off with the better, higher order thinking. I disagree. Each of the classified levels of Bloom's Taxonomy are important in its own way. I look at the taxonomy as a constructivist model. Each level builds and supports the others as we move from the simple foundation of memory to the heightening sophistication of the other elements, (again, not to suggest higher is better, just different.) I look at is as a heuristic model allowing learners to be mindful of what element they choose for specific learning purposes.
My conclusion is that kids need to be taught to view the elements of Bloom's Taxonomy as tools they can choose to negotiate a learning challenge, depending on the nature of particular challenges. Each element is a specific tool, and some learning challenges require a combination of tools to get the job done. Looking at each element of Bloom's Taxonomy as mutually exclusive seems to me not a good way to use any of them.
No comments:
Post a Comment