Connectivism_54669b4f6a1f0_w1500.jpg (JPEG Image, 1500 × 13104 pixels) - Scaled (7%) Marzanos-9-instructional-strategies.jpg (JPEG Image, 600 × 1375 pixels) - Scaled (72%) Bloom_plts.jpg (JPEG Image, 734 × 705 pixels) - Scaled (91%) Bloom's Taxonomy - Relevant or Redundant? It is amazing to me how pervasive Bloom's Taxonomy (1956) remains, despite its geriatric credentials. In particular advocates of TEL (Technology Enhanced Learning) are often the most ecstatic about it, keen to categorise many of the most ubiquitous digital tools under it's reassuring tiers – well the tiers of its ‘cognitive domain’ anyway.
Despite its 'common sensibility' Bloom’s Taxonomy was and is purely theoretical, without basis in cognitive research (Ritchhart et al, 2011). The idea that thinking is sequential or hierarchical is highly questionable (Marzano, 2000), but nevertheless Bloom's categories capture types of mental activity that are embraced (rightly or wrongly) by many practitioners, and are therefore, it could be argued, useful as a starting point for thinking about thinking. Anderson and Krathwohl’s revisions (2001), emphasise the importance of creativity, although understanding was still undervalued. 5-dimensions-for-meaningful-learning_530394862044d_w1500.png (JPEG Image, 1500 × 1160 pixels) - Scaled (57. 21st-century-pedagogies.jpg (JPEG Image, 744 × 520 pixels) Dok-depth-of-knowledge.jpg (JPEG Image, 756 × 567 pixels) Simple-taxonomy-for-understanding.jpg (JPEG Image, 756 × 567 pixels)
Newpadagogywheel-3.0.png (PNG Image, 718 × 714 pixels) - Scaled (93%) Marzano-taxonomy.jpg (JPEG Image, 756 × 584 pixels)