Before September 20, write in the comments section, your opinion on whether the author was able to connect Bloom and his work to current digital learning.
I think this article did a great job of applying Bloom's Taxonomy to the digital process. I especially appreciate how direct and to the point this article is. The author does not assume the we need to be told what information will be presented, present the information and then tell again what was presented. This information is given in a very clear format, giving new digital verbs with the old. The only way that I feel it could have been better is to show how each digital verb mapped back to the 2001 version of Bloom's words either using a graphic organizer or list (perhaps because I teach math and like order?).
I think the author was able to effectively connect Bloom’s taxonomy to digital learning. I especially appreciated the fact that the author provided us with the revised version of the taxonomy and also explained what all of the digital terms meant. I do believe, however, that for some of the terms a more specific example would have been helpful. For example, I am still not completely convinced that twittering needs to be under understanding. I would have liked a more detailed explanation of why it fits there. I did enjoy the article because it shows how we can have students think at higher levels when using technology. I feel that it is very useful for teachers.
This article was really interesting! Taking something we've followed for years, and aligning it to our 21st century demands is essential. This article did a great job at modeling how we can change and grow with technology, as well as how technology can fit into the traditional classroom.
I feel the article was very informative and to the point. I appreciate how they put the new digital verbs with 2001 Bloom verbs, it will make it easier when designing lessons that incorporate technology. Although I am a little perplexed as I teach students who have extremely low literacy levels in their native language in using the computer. Our lowest students use computer programs and games, but their literacy levels are below kindergarten in English yet according to the article those activities would be considered "understanding." I don't think they 'understand' what they are doing, more acurately they are able to go 'through the motions' (remembering - recalling how to do the activity).
As many of the others have stated, I like how the author of the article connected the taxonomy that we have followed for years to technological terms. I can see how some of the activities listed can line up, but I also think that you can use many of them at other levels of Bloom's.
For example, the author lists podcasting as a verb for creating. Of course podcasting can be used for creating, but you can also have a student record what he understands using a podcast, apply what he learns by making a podcast, analize information via a podcast, etc.
I also think that the quality of product needs to be addressed somewhere in this discussion. Just because a student can pull some music from a cd and add video and photos to go with it does not mean that he understands the content, knows what he can or cannot do with the music, video and or pictures legally, or has evaluated his sources of information.
I realize this was just a short article intended to link how Bloom's can be related to what we do with technology, but think we need to process this information further to make it really useful as educators.
The author did a fine job to initiate the idea of applying Bloom´s taxonomy to technology learning. However, I agree with Laura and Mary that some of the skills could be included in various levels depending on the goal of the activity. I am not familiar with some of the skill terms used in the article (for example: mashing, cracking, reverse-engineering), so as a teacher I would need training in order to teach such skills.
This was an excellent modern application of Bloom's taxonomy. Technology is an important part of our everyday lives and by using this new taxonomy we as teachers can assess students at a technological level. As a preschool teacher, I do not use many of these technological processes, but I appreciate how they fit into the modern classroom.
I think that this article did a great job of tying blooms to the didgital age. I loved the fact that the article took the time to descibe and explain the digital words. Without these descriptions I was very lost as to how they connected to blooms. This however is due to my lack of digital knowledge, so as a teacher I found this article very useful in understanding the digital vocabulary or language. My only concern or what I would like to see go along with the definitions is an example of some of these items. I am a very visual learner so I feel that with an example I would better understand the use of these techniques and be able to better teach my students as well.
I think the author did a great job taking something that is older and giving it a new application. I think it was an interesting way to be able to look at the levels and assess my students now. I know that that we are to teach on on levels, but in the subject of technology its always been harder to think of ways to use levels and assess them at the same time. With this article and the different language definitions, I am able to look at the different levels. I agree with Tera though examples would help with the clear picture of the definitions.
I appreciate this variation of Bloom's. It's presented in a clear, concise way. In particular, I enjoyed the verbs associated with each level of understanding. It can be difficult to apply Bloom's if you are not yet comfortable with the content (in this case technology). It is written in a way that is an asset for teacher's beginning to use varying technologies and for those of us who are looking for new ways to incorporate technology into our lessons. I think that this article is worth a bookmark.
In a school district that I prevously taught in, we would use Bloom's and verbs frequently at inservices. Many times we would bring in assignments and assessments to see what types of questions we were asking. By adding this verbs for technology can make it a lot easier to identify the levels. There were times when people used technology in their assignments and it was hard to really decide which level it went under. I have to agree with a majority of the class when I say that it is nice to read a article like this with the main idea right there, without all the extra words and explainations.
I think that adding to and adapting Bloom's for the modern classroom is a wonderful idea. I appreciated how concise the summary of this information was as well, though I agree with previous comments regarding the quality of a product. While tools like podcasts or wikis ideally utilize higher-order thinking skills, it is entirely possible to manipulate these technologies while missing the point of the content at hand. Of course, this is true for both digital and "old school" assignments, and perhaps the answer lies in simply modeling the quality of the desired product.
I definitely appreciated the direct approach the article took in presenting this topic. As I have not worked extensively with Bloom's lately, it was nice to see the original information and action words along side the author's additions based on technology. Like my classmates, I do agree that at every level some of the terms used could be used at other levels. Having concise examples would also have enhanced the article.
I believe that as an educator, I need to be thinking along these lines more frequently, and maybe it would allow others to see that higher order thinking is clearly present in technology based learning.
I agree with many others that this article was very helpful for applying Bloom’s Taxonomy to technology. I believe the author presented the information in a clear, direct manner, and I think that the information was easy to understand. I think that by focusing on the verbs for each level it helps me as a teacher to focus on what do I expect the students to be able to do.
The only thing I thought the article was missing were concrete examples of each level. I think that examples would help all teachers to better understand the possible connections between Bloom’s Taxonomy and technology in the classroom.
This is a wonderful article! It seems so spot on with the terms it used. I noticed after reading it that this article is from 2008. I can't believe it still correctly identifies how students learn today. I, too, appreciated the references to the original Bloom's Taxonomy and how the author went into detail and broke down the Digital Taxonomy. I haven't ever seen the digital side broken down like that. It makes complete sense; I just haven't ever broken down and thought about it.
I found this analysis of peoples level of comfort or use of technology intriguing. Their interpretation of blooms taxonomy in reference to technology is surprisingly accurate. My concern in using this as a method of evaluation is that personally I do not engage in some of the activities listed in the upper levels not because I do not possess the knowledge or ability but because making entries like this and creating things on the web for everyone to see makes me uncomfortable. I am a private person and find it frustrating to engage in these activities. I guess I am only sharing now because last year I had several students who fell into this category. They were terrified of putting themselves out their even though the page was only viewable by the other 8th graders. I think that they are right about the alignment of the skills, but we need to be careful when using this to assess students to not miss the cues that show us they understand but are insecure.
I loved that this author got straight to the point of what he was trying to clarify in this article. It was an easy read and clearly explained how Bloom's work relates to technology. By focusing on the verbs and their direct meaning, it is easy for teaxhers to glance back at this information and relate it to their students level of understanding.
I find that my students are more likely to move up on Bloom's taxonomy to the higher level skills when using multimedia sources. Our students are frequently analyzing, evaluating and creating when engaged with new technology and we as educators fail to build on the skills students have started to develop on their own. Using media and technology is not only engaging for the students but it also shows them that the higher level skills are not as daunting as they seems nor is it an impossible task. In addition, the use of technology to reach the higher order skills often makes the lesson more relevant to the students.
I had a hard time thinking that some of the terms that the author came up with for technology supported Bloom's technology.
One of the terms that I have issues with is Googling for remembering. How does the act of typing a word into a search engine reinforce the idea of remembering? Just because a student types it in doesn't mean that they are reading the article(s) about what they are researching. Many of my students don't like to read. In fact, I had them doing some "research" on the internet just last week. Many of them did not read any of the articles that they had found.
How does Twittering demonstrate that the student has an understanding of a concept? How can they demonstrate understanding when limited to 140 characters, especially when it's a complex mathematical or scientific concept, etc.?
Playing games on the computer, even in the subject matter area, doesn't necessarily show an application of skills that the teacher wants displayed. Sure, they are an application of skills, but not necessarily of those that should be applied at the time for the concept being taught at the time.
I am dismayed that my original comment did not post. However, I believe that Bloom's Taxonomy as given in this article was meant as an easy reference for daily/weekly planning of lessons. The aim was to keep the teacher on course for preparing children to be well-rounded thinkers. In this case, "Bloom's Taxonomy technology inclusive" appears to be trying to do the same thing. However, Andrew Churches’ synthesis seems to be more concerned with what nouns or verbs are included (and oh, my, are they included) than in the actual process whereby children become thinking adults. I do agree that technology has generated a new taxonomy (or the need for one), but whether starting at the bottom or the top of it isn’t all that earth shattering. What is important is to stay out of the rut we are all prone to the longer we teach. We stay out of that rut, by varying our strategies and presentations constantly.
I thought the author did a good job connecting Bloom and his work to current digital learning. In describing each category he did was able to tie technology and digital learning to each level of learning. As a math teacher I have the opportunity to use quite a bit of technology in the classroom. Something I need to work on is how to incorporate more of it in my lessons.
I think this article did a great job of applying Bloom's Taxonomy to the digital process. I especially appreciate how direct and to the point this article is. The author does not assume the we need to be told what information will be presented, present the information and then tell again what was presented. This information is given in a very clear format, giving new digital verbs with the old. The only way that I feel it could have been better is to show how each digital verb mapped back to the 2001 version of Bloom's words either using a graphic organizer or list (perhaps because I teach math and like order?).
ReplyDeleteI think the author was able to effectively connect Bloom’s taxonomy to digital learning. I especially appreciated the fact that the author provided us with the revised version of the taxonomy and also explained what all of the digital terms meant. I do believe, however, that for some of the terms a more specific example would have been helpful. For example, I am still not completely convinced that twittering needs to be under understanding. I would have liked a more detailed explanation of why it fits there. I did enjoy the article because it shows how we can have students think at higher levels when using technology. I feel that it is very useful for teachers.
ReplyDeleteThis article was really interesting! Taking something we've followed for years, and aligning it to our 21st century demands is essential. This article did a great job at modeling how we can change and grow with technology, as well as how technology can fit into the traditional classroom.
ReplyDeleteI feel the article was very informative and to the point. I appreciate how they put the new digital verbs with 2001 Bloom verbs, it will make it easier when designing lessons that incorporate technology. Although I am a little perplexed as I teach students who have extremely low literacy levels in their native language in using the computer. Our lowest students use computer programs and games, but their literacy levels are below kindergarten in English yet according to the article those activities would be considered "understanding." I don't think they 'understand' what they are doing, more acurately they are able to go 'through the motions' (remembering - recalling how to do the activity).
ReplyDeleteAs many of the others have stated, I like how the author of the article connected the taxonomy that we have followed for years to technological terms. I can see how some of the activities listed can line up, but I also think that you can use many of them at other levels of Bloom's.
ReplyDeleteFor example, the author lists podcasting as a verb for creating. Of course podcasting can be used for creating, but you can also have a student record what he understands using a podcast, apply what he learns by making a podcast, analize information via a podcast, etc.
I also think that the quality of product needs to be addressed somewhere in this discussion. Just because a student can pull some music from a cd and add video and photos to go with it does not mean that he understands the content, knows what he can or cannot do with the music, video and or pictures legally, or has evaluated his sources of information.
I realize this was just a short article intended to link how Bloom's can be related to what we do with technology, but think we need to process this information further to make it really useful as educators.
The author did a fine job to initiate the idea of applying Bloom´s taxonomy to technology learning. However, I agree with Laura and Mary that some of the skills could be included in various levels depending on the goal of the activity. I am not familiar with some of the skill terms used in the article (for example: mashing, cracking, reverse-engineering), so as a teacher I would need training in order to teach such skills.
ReplyDeleteThis was an excellent modern application of Bloom's taxonomy. Technology is an important part of our everyday lives and by using this new taxonomy we as teachers can assess students at a technological level. As a preschool teacher, I do not use many of these technological processes, but I appreciate how they fit into the modern classroom.
ReplyDeleteI think that this article did a great job of tying blooms to the didgital age. I loved the fact that the article took the time to descibe and explain the digital words. Without these descriptions I was very lost as to how they connected to blooms. This however is due to my lack of digital knowledge, so as a teacher I found this article very useful in understanding the digital vocabulary or language. My only concern or what I would like to see go along with the definitions is an example of some of these items. I am a very visual learner so I feel that with an example I would better understand the use of these techniques and be able to better teach my students as well.
ReplyDeleteI think the author did a great job taking something that is older and giving it a new application. I think it was an interesting way to be able to look at the levels and assess my students now. I know that that we are to teach on on levels, but in the subject of technology its always been harder to think of ways to use levels and assess them at the same time. With this article and the different language definitions, I am able to look at the different levels. I agree with Tera though examples would help with the clear picture of the definitions.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate this variation of Bloom's. It's presented in a clear, concise way. In particular, I enjoyed the verbs associated with each level of understanding. It can be difficult to apply Bloom's if you are not yet comfortable with the content (in this case technology). It is written in a way that is an asset for teacher's beginning to use varying technologies and for those of us who are looking for new ways to incorporate technology into our lessons. I think that this article is worth a bookmark.
ReplyDeleteIn a school district that I prevously taught in, we would use Bloom's and verbs frequently at inservices. Many times we would bring in assignments and assessments to see what types of questions we were asking. By adding this verbs for technology can make it a lot easier to identify the levels. There were times when people used technology in their assignments and it was hard to really decide which level it went under. I have to agree with a majority of the class when I say that it is nice to read a article like this with the main idea right there, without all the extra words and explainations.
ReplyDeleteI think that adding to and adapting Bloom's for the modern classroom is a wonderful idea. I appreciated how concise the summary of this information was as well, though I agree with previous comments regarding the quality of a product. While tools like podcasts or wikis ideally utilize higher-order thinking skills, it is entirely possible to manipulate these technologies while missing the point of the content at hand. Of course, this is true for both digital and "old school" assignments, and perhaps the answer lies in simply modeling the quality of the desired product.
ReplyDeleteI definitely appreciated the direct approach the article took in presenting this topic. As I have not worked extensively with Bloom's lately, it was nice to see the original information and action words along side the author's additions based on technology. Like my classmates, I do agree that at every level some of the terms used could be used at other levels. Having concise examples would also have enhanced the article.
ReplyDeleteI believe that as an educator, I need to be thinking along these lines more frequently, and maybe it would allow others to see that higher order thinking is clearly present in technology based learning.
I agree with many others that this article was very helpful for applying Bloom’s Taxonomy to technology. I believe the author presented the information in a clear, direct manner, and I think that the information was easy to understand. I think that by focusing on the verbs for each level it helps me as a teacher to focus on what do I expect the students to be able to do.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing I thought the article was missing were concrete examples of each level. I think that examples would help all teachers to better understand the possible connections between Bloom’s Taxonomy and technology in the classroom.
This is a wonderful article! It seems so spot on with the terms it used. I noticed after reading it that this article is from 2008. I can't believe it still correctly identifies how students learn today. I, too, appreciated the references to the original Bloom's Taxonomy and how the author went into detail and broke down the Digital Taxonomy. I haven't ever seen the digital side broken down like that. It makes complete sense; I just haven't ever broken down and thought about it.
ReplyDeleteI found this analysis of peoples level of comfort or use of technology intriguing. Their interpretation of blooms taxonomy in reference to technology is surprisingly accurate. My concern in using this as a method of evaluation is that personally I do not engage in some of the activities listed in the upper levels not because I do not possess the knowledge or ability but because making entries like this and creating things on the web for everyone to see makes me uncomfortable. I am a private person and find it frustrating to engage in these activities. I guess I am only sharing now because last year I had several students who fell into this category. They were terrified of putting themselves out their even though the page was only viewable by the other 8th graders. I think that they are right about the alignment of the skills, but we need to be careful when using this to assess students to not miss the cues that show us they understand but are insecure.
ReplyDeleteI loved that this author got straight to the point of what he was trying to clarify in this article. It was an easy read and clearly explained how Bloom's work relates to technology. By focusing on the verbs and their direct meaning, it is easy for teaxhers to glance back at this information and relate it to their students level of understanding.
ReplyDeleteI find that my students are more likely to move up on Bloom's taxonomy to the higher level skills when using multimedia sources. Our students are frequently analyzing, evaluating and creating when engaged with new technology and we as educators fail to build on the skills students have started to develop on their own. Using media and technology is not only engaging for the students but it also shows them that the higher level skills are not as daunting as they seems nor is it an impossible task. In addition, the use of technology to reach the higher order skills often makes the lesson more relevant to the students.
ReplyDeleteI had a hard time thinking that some of the terms that the author came up with for technology supported Bloom's technology.
ReplyDeleteOne of the terms that I have issues with is Googling for remembering. How does the act of typing a word into a search engine reinforce the idea of remembering? Just because a student types it in doesn't mean that they are reading the article(s) about what they are researching. Many of my students don't like to read. In fact, I had them doing some "research" on the internet just last week. Many of them did not read any of the articles that they had found.
How does Twittering demonstrate that the student has an understanding of a concept? How can they demonstrate understanding when limited to 140 characters, especially when it's a complex mathematical or scientific concept, etc.?
Playing games on the computer, even in the subject matter area, doesn't necessarily show an application of skills that the teacher wants displayed. Sure, they are an application of skills, but not necessarily of those that should be applied at the time for the concept being taught at the time.
I am dismayed that my original comment did not post. However, I believe that Bloom's Taxonomy as given in this article was meant as an easy reference for daily/weekly planning of lessons. The aim was to keep the teacher on course for preparing children to be well-rounded thinkers. In this case, "Bloom's Taxonomy technology inclusive" appears to be trying to do the same thing. However, Andrew Churches’ synthesis seems to be more concerned with what nouns or verbs are included (and oh, my, are they included) than in the actual process whereby children become thinking adults. I do agree that technology has generated a new taxonomy (or the need for one), but whether starting at the bottom or the top of it isn’t all that earth shattering. What is important is to stay out of the rut we are all prone to the longer we teach. We stay out of that rut, by varying our strategies and presentations constantly.
ReplyDeleteI thought the author did a good job connecting Bloom and his work to current digital learning. In describing each category he did was able to tie technology and digital learning to each level of learning. As a math teacher I have the opportunity to use quite a bit of technology in the classroom. Something I need to work on is how to incorporate more of it in my lessons.
ReplyDelete