Back in February, Mike Fisher posted on his blog a technology-based hierarchy for the revised Bloom’s taxonomy.
There was some discussion about the application (or misapplication) of Blooms with this hierarchy. Here was my response that I posted also on Mike’s blog.
—–
Blooms, former and revised, are used as a framework for cognitive levels of tasks- test questions, performance-based tasks, etc.
What is interesting is not the misapplication, probably not an accurate term in my opinion, but more so a morphing of Bloom’s. What this hierarchy that Mike has created now seems to pigeon hole specific technologies in various levels of cognitive difficulty.
Last week when I was talking to my undergraduate preservice teachers about the Revised Bloom’s and technology one point that they kept coming back to was a technology (alone) does not constitute a higher level or lower level task. Blogs can be used (and are commonly used by K-12 students) for lower level knowledge, just as YouTube could be used as a springboard for a higher level task or a lower level task as Mike has characterized it.
I think that Mike’s hierarchy helps push the conversation forward– how do we utilize these high-leverage technologies (wikis, blogs, multimedia creation tools) and ensure that students are engaging in high quality tasks that develop their higher-order thinking skills?
Andrew Church provided us with some ideas on this in 2007 that help me think about how I prepare future and current teachers to use these technologies themselves or with their students.
Posted by drewpolly