Comments on: Better than Bloom?

By: Harold Jarche » Theories and Practices

Harold Jarche » Theories and Practices — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 13:55:35 +0000

[...] the field of education and training is Bloom’s Taxonomy, which has major flaws, as I wrote in Better than Bloom’s [see comments for more references]. I’m sure that many others can be added, so feel free to [...]

By: Writing Learning Objectives at Sims Learning Connections

Writing Learning Objectives at Sims Learning Connections — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 02:05:29 +0000

[...] takes me back to Bloom goes boom! by the other Donald Clark, and also Harold Jarche’s Better than Bloom? In my own limited instructional design experience, I haven’t been especially tied to Bloom; [...]

By: Romi Rancken

Romi Rancken — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 19:25:53 +0000

Well, it is a pragmatic approach, because I’m a pragmatist, like Dewey . And also an extentialist (at least for the time being…) which means that I have read some of Kirkgaard’s texts, including the famous viewpoint that if you want to teach someone, you have to start at the point where this person stands.

By: Harold

Harold — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 10:51:01 +0000

Sounds like a very pragmatic approach, Romi. Getting a conversation going could be the first step in getting people to think of learning as a complex process instead of filling specific boxes.

By: Romi Rancken

Romi Rancken — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 05:49:14 +0000

Thanks Harold for the comments and the valuable links! I’ll use them when I argue AGAINST Bloom’s taxonomy, which I do every now and then because of reasons you and I have mentioned.

In my work as a HE teacher and project manager I have seen people use Bloom’s taxonomy in different contexts. Here in Europe we have the so called Bologna process going on in higher education. It has to a certain extent meant a regression to a behaviorist view of learning, due to the domination of the big, conservative European countries. Here in the Nordic countries, we look (at least on average) differently at learning and we are leaning more towards late modern/postmodern views, at least in theory. I think the progressive Canadians look at things from approximately the same point of view (that’s why I read your, George Siemens’ and Dave Pollard’s blogs every day ).

So, I do admit that burying Bloom’s taxonomy would be the best solution. But the fact is that it is still used a lot. By pointing conservatives at the new version, I have sometimes been able to get a good conversation going. What does it mean that Evaluation has been replaced by Creating? And that Knowledge has been replaced by Remembering? I feel I have been able to point at some important developments in the traditional view of learning/assessment by using my opponent’s own tool, Bloom’s taxonomy, as a wedge.

And by pointing at the fact that Krathwohl was involved in both, I can show that even personal views must change, and that “eternal” pedagogical truths have to be looked at very critically.

But I realize that the way I expressed myself in my first post gives the impression that I actually accept the idea of taxonomies. I don’t.

By: Harold

Harold — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 18:34:09 +0000

Taxonomies, including Bloom’s, can be abused in their apparent simplicity. Bloom’s taxonomy was designed for assessment only, not as a prescriptive measure, which is what is recommended in the College of Education article, that you reference, Romi. As Mary Forehand states in that article:

“The cumulative hierarchical framework consisting of six categories each requiring achievement of the prior skill or ability before the next, more complex, one, remains easy to understand.”

Whereas, this Carnegie Foundation article by Lee Shulman shows the weakness of such an approach:

“Quickly, then, the taxonomies moved from being a scoring rubric and vehicle for communicating about test items, to being a heuristic for instructional design.”

“Another thing that happens to taxonomies, and it happened to Bloom’s, is that they come to be understood as making a theoretical claim about sequentiality and hierarchy, suggesting that the only legitimate way to learn something is in this particular order. The implication of sequence and hierarchy within taxonomies obscures their true value, because taxonomies are not and should not be treated as theories.”

http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/publications/sub.asp?key=452&subkey=612

I haven’t seen any data that show that people actually learn in the sequence of Bloom’s taxonomy, revised or not. The revised model was developed in the same manner as the original; a bunch of experts getting together and sorting it out. This does not approach the scientific validity of brain-based research using fMRI scans. I would recommend http://eideneurolearningblog.blogspot.com/

By: Romi Rancken

Romi Rancken — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 17:57:17 +0000

Bloom’s taxonomy is really not helping us develop education, even if it can act as a memory aid for a person who really have not thought at all about different types of knowledge. But then there’s a risk that the image of the pyramid stays in that person’s mind as The Model of Knowledge.
If someone wants to use the taxonomy, I would recommend the revised version by Anderson and Krathwohl from 2001. Krathwohl was a member of the original group who developed the taxonomy in the fifties.
You can see a comparison of the old and the revised taxonomy at: http://www.coe.uga.edu/epltt/bloom.htm

Rgds, Romi