Bloom’s Doom – The misapplication of an important taxonomy

Links to various configurations and descriptions of Bloom’s Taxonomy are frequently tweeted and retweeted and shared in other ways.  This is a testament to the continued relevance of this taxonomy of cognitive complexity.  But not all descriptions or organizations of Bloom’s are created equal – so buyer beware!  Unfortunately so many of them seem completely misguided – at least, they appear nonsensical to me.  What worries me the most is that some of the most erroneous visual guides are the most shared, and to me, that makes them dangerous.

Many educators, myself included, suffer from a technolust that sometimes allows a love affair with a particular tool goad us into forcing a square peg into a round hole.  This happens when teachers use tools because they are new and “shiny” rather than because they are a natural fit for their pedagogical needs.  Another example of a bad fit is the numerous examples of visuals that try to categorize various techno tools in the Bloom’s hierarchy, and there have been a number of them.  Here’s a sampling:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So why do I believe these visuals to be misguided, unhelpful, and even dangerous?  Two reasons.

1.  What’s the point?

When people create guides like this, I wonder to myself what is the point.  How do they envision that teachers will use them.  My best guess is that they would like for teachers to say to themselves, “Hmm, I’d really like to get my students to be thinking at a higher level today – perhaps at the Create level, but I’m just not sure what tool will help them do that.”  And then later…”Aha, if I take a look at this nice diagram I can see that I can pick one of these tools in the Create level of Bloom’s and I’m all set.”

I hope that teachers do not use these diagrams in this way.  It runs counter to what Judi Harris and many others have said about the tool not driving the instruction.  What should drive the instruction is the outcome that you are hoping to attain and the pedagogical approach that will best achieve that end.  This is an almost exactly opposite approach to Harris’ Activity Types where selecting the appropriate technology that will support the learning goals is the last step.

Another way that the creators might envision the use of these charts is that teachers might use them as an argument that their instruction is working students’ minds at a higher order of thinking.  A teacher might their teaching techniques are validated by saying something to the effect of, “How great!  I have my students use wikis and Google sites.  That shows that my students are working at the highest level of cognitive complexity — Create.”  That might be a valid use of these organizers if they were reliable, but I think it is fairly easy to demonstrate that they are not.  Imagine a teacher having students “create” a wiki where it is little more than a research project where students find information and illustrate it with pictures that they find on the web.  If the students do little to digest the information, this would at best reach the understanding level of Bloom’s unless a significant effort is made to organize the information for a purpose.  This brings me to my second criticism of these organizers.

2.  They don’t make sense

Heck they don’t even agree.  In the first image, created by M. Fischer, YouTube is at the bottom Remembering level, and in the second, created by Samantha Penney, YouTube is at the second from the top Evaluate level, and in the third, created by Kathy Schrock, YouTube is at the top Create level.  So what does that mean?  Does that mean two of these people are wrong?  No, they are all right, but they are also all wrong.  They are all right because YouTube could be used at the remembering level if you asked students to watch a YouTube video in order to teach them about who Barack Obama is or what the Challenger disaster was.  It could also be used at the evaluate level if you asked students to critique the accuracy or production value of the final product, but it could also be at the create level if you asked students to create and upload a persuasive video meant to provide a convincing argument for or against unionization.  They are all wrong because they place a tool at a particular level of Bloom’s.  Any tool could fall at any level of Bloom’s, and I challenge you to find a tool that is even mostly used at only one level of Bloom’s.  The tool is basically irrelevant to determining at what level of Bloom’s a tool resides, and this is the most important reason that these organizers should not be made.

In my last post I praised Benjamin Bloom as one of My Ed Hero #2 because his taxonomy is such an important tool, but I also discussed the way that these organizers fundamentally misrepresent what the taxonomy is all about.  It is a hierarchy of cognitive complexity.  It is about what people’s minds do not what features or capabilities a tool has.  It is what is going on inside the head of a child during a task that determines where it falls on Bloom’s.  For example, take Webspiration, a new Inspiration product, that was placed at the Understanding level of Bloom’s on Samantha Penney’s graphic.  On their blog, Inspiration graciously expressed gratitude to Samantha for placing their tool at the Understanding level but went on to explain that the Webspiration tool could be used to encourage students to think at any of the levels of cognitive complexity on Bloom’s taxonomy, and rightly so.  If you have ever used Inspiration, a cursory look at their templates will reveal pre-made diagrams that ask students to analyze, evaluate, etc.  The tool could easily be used to promote any type of thinking on the taxonomy.

Just one more point and then I’ll sum up.  For some reason people recognize the absurdity of classifying non-technology tools and items on Bloom’s.  Where would paper fall?  How about a pencil?  How about a two dimensional paper map?  How about a two-dimensional image?  Just take a look at this website that shows how a single image can be used in activities that promote each level of Bloom’s.  Any of these things, heck even a blade of grass, a bird’s feather, a chair, and more could be used to promote thinking at any level of Bloom’s.  The only thing that determines the level of Bloom’s is the what is happening in the mind of the child, and it is what you ask the student to do with the tool that will determine this.

Please stop making these types of graphics.  They are misleading and unhelpful.  Please stop sharing them.  And if I’m completely wrong about all of this, tell me why these graphics are correct and helpful and I will eat my words.

Goomoodleikiog 4 Students

Here’s a sequel to Goomoodleikiog.  This second video takes a look at Goomoodleikiog from the student perspective.  Why would an online academic suite composed of Google, Moodle, Wikis, and Blogs be helpful to students?  The  argument is that Goomoodleikiog provides them the following.

• anywhere/anytime access
• anywhere/anytime collaboration
• real-world audiences
• 21st century skills – design and technology skills (and collaborative)
• digital citizenship
• immediate feedback/validation
• easy organization of educational work  (harder for the dog to eat your homework)
• a challenge!
• and more

Bigger than the printing press?

Just returned from the CUE conference in Palm Springs with a feeling of excitement.  One session that got me thinking was a panel discussion about Classroom 2.0 hosted by Steve Hargadon.  At one point the panel discussed whether Web 2.0 is as big or a bigger innovation than the printing press.  There was some minor disagreement about this, but, by and large, people agreed that it is most likely a more significant innovation.

Printing Press from Gastev's flickr photostream

As far as I am concerned, Web 2.0 is a more significant innovation.  The printing press allowed for the wider dissemination of content, but what was printed was still controlled by the upper echelons.  A relative few had the opportunity to share their ideas through printing.   The content was the same.

Web 2.0 allows for instant, world-wide dissemination by ANYONE.  Not only does this change who can publish, but it changes the content that is being published.  There is no establishment that makes a decision about what content is appropriate, profound, important, etc.

For education, this means that students can be published.  Their work can be presented to everyone in the world, not just their teacher or peers within the walls of their classroom.  These are fantastic beneifts of this revolution, but it also poses a problem.

When doing web-research, teachers usually teach students about reliable and unreliable sources.  One of the criteria tends to be the web 2.0 sites are less reliable than more traditional websites because they are just by “some guy.” In fact this is why great resources like Wikipedia are often blocked.

Some argue, however, that Wikipedia is possibly more reliable and more up-to-date than more traditional encyclopedias.  It is easy to create articles about current news and current technology, and since it is written and edited by “us,” there are many filters that can help remove bias and inaccuracies.

But as the web is more and more being written by us – recorded history and current events are being written more and more by “us,” a new problem arises.  How do we teach students to evaluate web-resources?  It doesn’t seem right to simply discount websites that aren’t from the “establishment.”  But with a flood of websites and resources out there, how do we teach students to filter?

Here are my first thoughts:

• Web 2.0 that allows for anyone to join are more reliable than those that require approval and those are more reliable than those that are closed
• The more collaborators (not subscribers) the more reliable
• The more that source is referenced by other apparently reliable sources, the more reliable it is
• The more links to other sources, the more reliable

I’d love to hear what other people think.

• Should we still hold “establishment” websites as more reliable than web 2.0?
• How should we teach students to evaluate sites that are web 2.0?

What I’m still worried about – Will  Web 2.0 lead to majority rule when it comes to recording history and reporting life as it happens?  If so, I’m worried.