Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy

1. Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy From Bloom and Back to Bloom

2. History • 1950’s Benjamin Bloom created Bloom’s Taxonomy • Hierarchy of six uni-dimensional cognitive levels • Developed so instruction and assessment were congruent

3. History Continued… • 1980’s Robert Marzano created Dimensions of Thinking • Components • Content Area Knowledge • Metacognition • Critical and Creative Thinking • Currently used for the state curriculum and testing program

4. History Continued… • 1990’s Lorin Anderson revisited Bloom and made it two-dimensional • Low and High Level Thinking Skills but not necessarily a hierarchy • Verbs replaced nouns because thinking skills indicate action • Revised Bloom's Taxonomy Table clarifies the fit of each lesson plan's purpose, "essential question," goal or objective; not just a thinking skill • Has Four Dimensions • Factual Knowledge • Conceptual Knowledge • Procedural Knowledge • Meta-Cognitive Knowledge

5. Comparison Chart

6. Cognitive Process Dimension • Remembering: Retrieving, recognizing, and recalling relevant knowledge from long-term memory. • Understanding: Constructing meaning from oral, written, and graphic messages through interpreting, exemplifying, classifying, summarizing, inferring, comparing, and explaining. • Applying: Carrying out or using a procedure through executing, or implementing. • Analyzing: Breaking material into constituent parts, determining how the parts relate to one another and to an overall structure or purpose through differentiating, organizing, and attributing. • Evaluating: Making judgments based on criteria and standards through checking and critiquing. • Creating: Putting elements together to form a coherent or functional whole; reorganizing elements into a new pattern or structure through generating, planning, or producing.

7. Example • Remember: Describe where Goldilocks lived. • Understand: Summarize what the Goldilocks story was about. • Apply: Construct a theory as to why Goldilocks went into the house. • Analyze: Differentiate between how Goldilocks reacted and how you would react in each story event. • Evaluate: Assess whether or not you think this really happened to Goldilocks. • Create: Compose a song, skit, poem, or rap to convey the Goldilocks story in a new form.

8. What are Differences Between Content and Knowledge? • Content is subject-matter specific. If you focused on content, then, you would need as many taxonomies as there are subject matters (e.g., one for science, one for history, etc.). • Content exists outside the student. A major problem, then, is how to get the content inside the student. When content gets inside the student, it becomes knowledge. This transformation of content to knowledge takes place through the cognitive processes used by the student.

9. Four Types of Knowledge • Factual Knowledge • Conceptual Knowledge • Procedural Knowledge • Metacognitive Knowledge

10. THE TAXONOMY TABLE COGNITIVE PROCESS DIMENSION KNOWLEDGE DIMENSION 1. REMEMBER Recognizing Recalling 2. UNDERSTAND Interpreting Exemplifying Classifying Summarizing Inferring Comparing Explaining 3. APPLY Executing Implementing 4. ANALYZE Differentiating Organizing Attributing 5. EVALUATE Checking Critiquing 6. CREATE Generating Planning Producing FACTUAL KNOWLEDGE CONCEPTUAL KNOWLEDGE PROCEDURAL KNOWLEDGE METACOGNITIVE KNOWLEDGE

11. Recipe Activity In your group, decide what Cognitive Process Dimension your recipe matches. Why that dimension? What additional knowledge does the cook need to have

12. The Common Format of Objectives Subject Verb Object S V O

13. * Objects of the standards are subject- specific (e.g., math, science, social studies). * The objects specify the CONTENT of the standard. For several reasons, CONTENT was replaced by KNOWLEDGE.* Content exists outside the student. A major problem, then, is how to get the content inside the student. * When content gets inside the student, it becomes knowledge and requires cognitive processes.

14. How it Works

15. Explain the political alliances and policies that impacted the United States in the latter part of the 20th Century, including NATO, the UN, and OPEC

16. Verb = Explain Object = the political alliances and policies that impacted the United States in the latter part of the 20th Century including NATO, the UN, and OPEC [Extraneous information]

17. Verb = Explain = Understand Object = the political alliances and policies that impacted the United States in the latter part of the 20th Century = Conceptual Knowledge

18. The SVO format of standards in combination with the two-dimensional structure of the Taxonomy Table allows us to classify standards so we better understand their intent and meaning in terms of student learning.

19. Additional Benefits • Increase curriculum alignment • Improve validity of assessments • Improve quality of instruction

20. Curriculum Alignment Curriculum Alignment Assessments Objectives Instructional Activities/ Materials

21. Why is Alignment Important? • Increases validity of assessment • Increases students’ opportunity to learn • Provides more accurate estimates of teaching effectiveness • Permits better instructional decisions to be made

22. Traditional Alignment • What content is included in the objective? • What content is included on the assessment(s)? • Is the content included in the objective and/or on the assessment included in the instructional materials? • If the content is the same, there is a high level of alignment.

23. Objectives ALIGNMENT USING THE TAXONOMY TABLE Assessments Instructional Activities

24. Curriculum Alignment Activity • Group yourselves with your department. • Identify the Cognitive Process Dimension for the Objectives • Answer the following • What dimension do most of your objectives align • How will this change you instruction? • How will this change your assessment?

25. Implication in the Classroom • Teachers must familiarize themselves with RBT terminology • Teachers must plan instruction to match assessment • Formative assessment must happen

26. References • http://www.hsc.unt.edu/SACS/ComplianceReport/IMAGES/SOURCEA498.PDF?id=502a5cd8-eb93-de11-ada2-0024e84f6678 • http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Bloom%27s_Taxonomy#end • Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of educational objectives: Complete edition, New York : Longman.