Abstracts included come directly from the articles or from the database specified, and are included per the instructions for this assignment given by the professor.
Cochran, D., & Conklin, J. (2007). A new Bloom: Transforming learning. Learning & Leading with Technology, 34(5), 22-25. Retrieved from www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/EJ779824.pdf
Abstract (ERIC database):
This article discusses a new design for the classic Bloom's Taxonomy developed by Anderson, L. W. & Krathwohl, D. (2001), which can be used to evaluate learners' technology-enhanced experience in more powerful and critical ways. The New Bloom's Taxonomy incorporates contemporary research on learning and human cognition into its model. The original taxonomy created consensus about how to use important vocabulary as it helped educators make use of the hierarchical nature of knowledge in teaching, learning, and curriculum development. It helped teachers use objectives as tools to promote and evaluate student learning. Benjamin Bloom and his colleagues created a workable and valuable way for educators to think about objectives, talk to each other, and create curriculum. The new paradigm updates this classic taxonomy and has some very important changes that help technology-using educators even more. This updated version of the classic Bloom's Taxonomy emphasizes learners' cognitive processes and points toward technology-enhanced activities.
Annotation:
The authors explain that the updates to Bloom's Taxonomy are especially helpful measuring the behaviors of learners rather than the content of a lesson. The evaluation of students' progress through the identification of what a student will be able to do thus takes on more importance than the material that is being studied. Teachers that use technology in the classroom will find these changes especially useful since they will be able to focus on what the students can do, rather than what can be done with the technology.
_________________________________________________________
Hanna, W. (2007). The new Bloom's Taxonomy: Implications for music education. Arts Education Policy Review, 108(4), 7-16.
Abstract:
Academic programs use objective and standardized assessment criteria. Music education programs have avoided such objective assessments via the assertion of subjectivity and aesthetics in music learning. In this article, the author introduces the revised Bloom's taxonomy as a tool to translate music education outcomes into objective educational criteria. The author analyzes cognitive processes and knowledge domains that address more complex forms of musicianship using achievement standards from the nine national standards in music education as examples. The author also introduces four new knowledge domains to describe procedural and metacognitive knowledge that are integral to music learning. In addition, the new taxonomy elevates creativity as the most complex of the cognitive processes, which has positive implications for the field of music education.
Annotation:
The author explains how the new revisions made to the Bloom's Taxonomy are especially helpful to music educators. While music is often seen from a subjective viewpoint, the new language allows for a more accurate assessment of artistic subjects.
_________________________________________________________
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212-218.
Abstract (Education Research Complete database):
Focuses on the revision of the final draft of the original 'Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain,' initiated by University of Chicago Board of Examination associate director Benjamin S. Bloom. Advantages of the original Taxonomy; Content of the original Taxonomy; Framework of the objectives describing intended learning outcomes; Overview of the revised Taxonomy.
Annotation:
This article discusses the original purposes for why Benjamin S. Bloom and his associates developed the Taxonomy, it's original construction, and the revisions that were made to the Taxonomy. After several years of careful deliberation, a small group of experts published the revisions in 2001. One of the goals in revising Bloom's Taxonomy was to create a framework that would encourage greater teacher usage, and as a result, it was revised to represent both the knowledge dimension and the cognitive process dimension.
_________________________________________________________
Krathwohl, D. R., & Anderson, L. W. (2010). Merlin C. Wittrock and the revision of Bloom's Taxonomy. Educational Psychologist, 45(1), 64-65. doi: 10.1080/00461520903433562
Abstract:
Merl Wittrock, a cognitive psychologist who had proposed a generative model of learning, was an essential member of the group that over a period of 5 years revised the Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, originally published in 1956. This article describes the development of that 2001 revision (Anderson and Krathwohl, Editors) and Merl's contributions to that effort.
Annotation:
When Krathwohl and Anderson were looking for experts to assist them in the revisions of the Bloom's Taxonomy, they requested the assistance of cognitive psychologist, Merl Wittrock. Wittrock was influential in the decision to change the cognitive processes from noun forms to verb forms, and worked diligently to choose the right words. In addition, it was Wittrock's suggestion to rename Synthesis to Create. Wittrock was also a strong proponent of including metacognitive knowledge in the revisions.
_________________________________________________________
Lord, T., & Baviskar, S. (2007). Moving students from information recitation to information understanding: Exploiting Bloom's Taxonomy in creating science questions. Journal of College Science Teaching, 36(5), 40-44.
Abstract (Education Research Complete database):
This article focuses on the formulation of science questions based on the mid and upper levels of Benjamin Bloom's taxonomy. Several studies conducted had revealed that college students in the U.S. have retained only a marginal understanding of the science courses that they have taken. In 1956, a team of theorists, led by Bloom, was able to develop a series of six learning levels for categorizing degrees of abstraction of questions. The six levels are knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation.
Annotation:
The authors mention past studies done which show students unable to use the information they have learned in college after they have graduated. The posit that this is a result of teaching for knowledge and not teaching for understanding. They then explain how the revised Bloom's Taxonomy can benefit teachers in this goal of teaching for knowledge.
_________________________________________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment