If you know me, you’ll know why I totally love this.
I think the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy is wrong.
Hear me out. I know this statement sounds heretical in the realms of education, but I think this is something we should rethink, especially since it is so widely taught to pre-service teachers. I agree that the taxonomy accurately classifies various types of cognitive thinking skills. It certainly identifies the different levels of complexity. But its organizing framework is dead wrong. Here’s why.
Old-school Blooms: Arduous climb for learners
Conceived in 1956 by a group of educators chaired by Benjamin Bloom, the taxonomy classifies skills from least to most complex. The presentation of the Taxonomy (in both the original and revised versions) as a pyramid suggests that one cannot effectively begin to address higher levels of thinking until those below them have been thoroughly addressed. Consequently (at least in the view of many teachers who learned the taxonomy as part of…
View original post 1,231 more words
This was a great post and Wright is passionate about learning.
I also appreciate your dedication to sharing inspirational posts and encouraging further conversations.
The question that I’m left puzzling is HOW did Bloom’s taxonomy become so dominant. By understanding the genesis of where particular *traditions* of educational assumptions originate we can put in play a deeper understanding of why an inverted taxonomy which begins with creativity should be the foundation of learning. In other words, our current approaches are not merely one approach and Wright offers another approach. Each of these alternative approaches is a MODEL and each model has a history.
My assumption is *understanding* the origin and genesis of each tradition OPENS the possibility of extended conversations on this theme of passionate learning.
Thanks again. I’ve added Wright to the blogs I follow