Anyone who's gone through a CS course, you know how things like Big O, sorting, and the primary data structures were beat in our heads?
Blooms is beat into the heads of Education majors (I was CS/Edu).
I live and breathe this now.
(BS in CS/Edu, MS in Instructional Design, EdD in Curr & Inst)<p>This past week was spent writing learning objectives for some cybersecurity lessons we're building and using good, measurable Bloom's verbs (and teaching coworkers who obviously somehow skipped those classes.)<p>To know if a lesson was effective or not, you should be able to see a change.
Like I can't see you understand. I can't see you know how to ___. But I can observe you <i>listing out</i> the things, or I can observe you <i>utilizing</i> a thing, or I can observe you <i>explain how to</i> do the thing.
Those are the objectives for a given lesson that is <i>observable</i>. That's the focus of a lesson to get the learner from where they can't do the thing to where they can do the thing and you can know they know it because it's <i>observable</i> in some way.<p>(Also Benjamin Bloom never drew a pyramid. His books are far more boring and sterile than something as easily digested as a triangle. However the triangle is a good distillation of his work - which is more than one book.)
Here is a critical take on representing this as a hierarchy or a pyramid. Interesting to see that even learning institutions use a pyramid, or as shown in another comment a 3D pyramid.<p><a href="https://donaldclarkplanb.blogspot.com/2020/07/bogus-pyramids-learning-methods-maslow.html" rel="nofollow">https://donaldclarkplanb.blogspot.com/2020/07/bogus-pyramids...</a>
We use this all the time when creating course learning outcomes. Usually a course features around three such CLOs, with each assignment directed towards at least two of them.<p>I’m not always sure how effectively CLOs correspond to the reality of what is taught and what is learned in a course, especially in my field (art and design). If they really were so important, then students and lecturers would be far more aware of them than they observably are.
If you want to better understand the revised taxonomy, I highly recommend this 3d pyramid visualization prepared by Iowa State:<p><a href="https://www.celt.iastate.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/RevisedBloomsHandout-1.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.celt.iastate.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Revi...</a>
When we look at today’s methods for knowledge models and education, we often look at the “Classical Education” method - named after its origins from classical era Greece as a certain conceptualized approach to education. This method led to a three-stage process, referred to in present-day as “Trivium”, that Ancient Greece philosopher Plato had explained in his dialogues regarding early Greek education. A closer look at the trivium reveals an ontological model that includes the 3 elements of a classical educational regiment - grammar, logic, and rhetoric.<p>The trivium comes from the study of structures called “Ontology”, meaning different things in different fields (ironically), but through information science, it means, “a way of studying a structure, and understanding the relationships between its parts”. With structure defined as, “the way in which the parts of something are connected together” With this structure being the trivium, and the parts being grammar, logic, and rhetoric.<p>A more impressive ontological addition towards the trivium has been “Bloom’s Taxonomy”, a hierarchical model written by a committee of educators, chaired by Benjamin Bloom, to take the three elements of the trivium, and divide them each into two simpler elements. “Grammar” turning into “Remember” and “Understand”, “Logic” turning into “Apply” and “Analyze”, and “Rhetoric” turning into “Evaluate” and “Create”.
I'm glad to see they're going with Bloom v2.<p>For context, in Bloom v1, when he was looking for a word to represent the second layer from the bottom, most people in the working group said "understand", but one person (afaik) said "no, when I say understand, I want them to truly understand, not just that". So we had years and years of education courses based on Bloom v1 teaching you that "Bloom is the thing where you're not allowed to use 'understand'" and whether you put that banned word in your course learning outcomes was the shibboleth for whether you were in the cultured education people's ingroup, or one of those philistines who might be able to get great teaching evaluations and their students report learning stuff, but they don't really understand capital-E Education (Theory).<p>(I've heard anecdotally that at one uni, everyone just did s/understand/comprehend/ for a while, as if a more fancy word had any influence on what's actually taught in the course.)<p>Then Bloom himself put "understand" back in there in v2. Some people got a lot of egg on their face.
While a little old (but still newer than blooms taxonomy outside), Blooms digital taxonomy might be of interest as well:<p><a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228381038_Bloom's_Digital_Taxonomy" rel="nofollow">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228381038_Bloom's_D...</a>