Revised Bloom's Taxonomy Transcript



Opening TranscriptRBT ModuleOpening IntroductionWelcome to the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy module featuring Dr. Lorin Anderson, author of?Revised Bloom’s TaxonomyThe purpose of this module is to provide an overview of the Revised Bloom's Taxonomy which is a common framework with a common vocabulary that can be used to think and talk about standards.? With a common framework and a common language, a shared understanding of standards among educators is more likely.Looking Through a New LensIt is a fundamental truth that we don’t see the world as it is, we see the world through the lens by which we look at it. Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy provides a new lens by which education should be viewed.? From 2008-2011, The North Carolina Essential Standards were developed, based upon the Revised Bloom's Taxonomy?(RBT).? During the course of 2008-2011, the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction worked closely with Dr. Lorin Anderson, co-author of?Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy?and a student of Dr. Benjamin Bloom, to ensure that our new standards were written accurately and with fidelity. Lorin W. Anderson is a Carolina Distinguished Professor of Education Emeritus at the University of South Carolina, where he has served on the faculty for 27 years.How Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy Can Help YouThe Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy was chosen because it has well-defined verbs and is built on modern cognitive research along with dimensions of knowledge.?The North Carolina Essential Standards for Science, Social Studies, Healthful Living, Arts, World Languages, Guidance, Career and Technical Education, Information and Technology Skills, the Occupational Course of Study, and the Extended Content Standards are built upon the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy.Module ExpectationsBy the end of this module, you will be able to:Compare the Original Bloom’s and Revised Bloom’s TaxonomyExplain the Cognitive verbs and how they can be used in classroom instruction and learningUnderstand how Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy supports and assesses student learningRevised Bloom's Taxonomy TranscriptRevised Bloom's Taxonomy TranscriptPre-Assessment and Reflection ActivityBefore we begin the first segment of the module, let’s pause and complete the KWL activity. The KWL activity is a chart that records what you already know, what you would like to know, and what you learned about a certain topic.? Please download the chart and complete the first two columns with what you already know about Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy and what you would like to know about Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy.?? The last column will be completed later in the module.Download the?KWL-chart.Group ActivityAs a group, discuss the first two columns of your KWL chart.? What similar information did your group already know about Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy? Next, discuss the responses from the “want to know” column.? What similarities are identified?? Once you have accomplished this as a group, save your KWL charts, as you will come back together with your group to discuss the final column.? Press continue to proceed throughout the module.Bloom's TaxonomyRevised Bloom’s Taxonomy serves as a conceptual framework?or lens by which our descriptions of educational programs and experiences could be oriented.? Using Revised Bloom's Taxonomy can help you better understand the standards that define the state curriculum and increase the alignment of standards, instruction and assessment. It furnishes a framework for the development of educational theories and research, and it furnishes the schemata needed for training teachers and orienting them to the varied possibilities of education.History of Revised Bloom'sOriginal Bloom’s Taxonomy was part of a long history of attempts to classify educational standards and objectives.? In 1949, the process of writing the Original Bloom’s Taxonomy began. In 1956, Original Bloom’s Taxonomy was published. From 1956-1995, about 20 different classification systems were developed from Bloom’s taxonomy.? Many educators in North Carolina are familiar with classifications such as Marzano’s Taxonomy, Habits of Mind by Art Costas, or Webb’s Depth of Knowledge.In November 1996, Dr. Lorin Anderson and David Krathwol led the efforts to revise Blooms Taxonomy, designed by Dr. Benjamin Bloom.? This effort involved cognitive psychologists, curriculum theorists, teacher educators, and measurement and assessment specialists.? The group met twice a year for four years.? In 2000, the draft of?Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy?was completed.? The first text was published in 2001.? The first two books were provided for teacher practitioners and academicians.Learning Outcomes OccurLearning outcomes and increased student achievement are met when there is a purposeful process that pays close attention to the content and student cognitive type and aligns with what is written, what is taught, and what is assessed. The Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy is such a process.? Mouse over each component of the process for more details.Importance of AlignmentHow a teacher understands a particular standard may not be the same as the understanding of those who wrote the standards. Often, teachers themselves disagree as to the meaning of a particular standard. Furthermore, because of these differences in understanding, it is quite possible that the instructional strategies and classroom assessment methods used by teachers are inconsistent with the intended meaning of the standard. In the language of the curriculum specialist or test developer, this inconsistency is known as a misalignment. The Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy provides a process for teachers to organize the mandated standards and objectives and?will be used as a guide, with state assessment developers, to ensure that the state level assessments align with standards and objectives.Click here?and use the menu bar to view the video.Helping Students See the Alignment in Revised Bloom’s TaxonomyLindsey Criss: In my classroom, I decided that the students really needed to understand the RBT model. So they could understand how they were going to be instructed was how they were going to be learning and how they were going to be assessed and that alignment really helped them. For example in accounting, I always struggled before the new RBT model to help them understand how they were going to be assessed. I did a lot of applying knowledge in that class and then they were being assessed with simple questions on a simple level and that was always frustrating to them when they got to the assessment level when they saw the item banks that were released through the system that they weren’t the same questions They weren’t applying any knowledge to the questions. Now with the new model, you can have them learn at the higher levels and have them even in Accounting II, analyze the information that they’re learning and have them be able to answer questions about what they’re analyzing. Those higher levels are giving them a deeper understanding of knowledge for them because they know that they have to completely understand different levels of the work. And being able to do things like apply procedures or analyze information especially in accounting, that’s a real world example right there. That’s what they do when they get out of college and start to work in an accounting firm or start to work in finance and having them to be able to be assessed like that has been a lot easier for them and they’re not as nervous about being assessed.A Shared ResponsibilityStudent achievement is a shared responsibility between the Department of Public Instruction, the local school district, and the classroom teacher. Let’s take a minute to think about who are responsible for student achievement. With your group or PLC, take a moment and discuss the following questions.? Write your responses on a large group chart or in a Word document that is visible to the entire group.Now that your group has identified what the roles of the state, the local school district, and the classroom teacher are in increasing student expectations, compare your responses with the following.Click here?and use the menu bar to view the video.Thinking Differently about the Way Students LearnLindsey Criss: Teachers should think differently about the RBT model and how they’re going to present information because it’s not as much memorizing facts as it is learning how to use the facts and relate them to real life and relate them, especially in CTE classes, we see relating to real world issues or real world scenarios. And using RBT model in my class has helped to do that a little more naturally with the kids.Changes in Student LearningIt ended up to be a lot of group projects, a lot of partnering with other students. They had to really interact with not only me but each other. Instead of having a lot of assignments where they sit and do memorization assignments or get information directly from one source, it allowed them to be able to ask questions and stimulate their own learning really and ask a lot of different questions and it wasn’t about “how do I do this?” It was more about the assignment and “how does this happen in the real world?” and “Is this something we can use once we leave high school?”Exploring Standards TranscriptExploring Standards TranscriptThree Problems with Early StandardsFor decades, there have been recurring sentiments about early standards:First, there were too many standards given the time teachers have available to teach them and students have to learn and apply them.Second, there was a wide range of standards in terms of their specificity. Some content areas were very general, while others were quite specific and provided a level of examples.Lastly, some standards, particularly those written at a more general level, often proved to be ambiguous and/or confusing.? That is, different people interpreted them in different ways.Rigorous educational standards have been and are strongly advocated by many facets of our society.?We are discussing an alternate article, “Creating Instructional Program Coherence” by Diana Oxley, that will serve as an excellent lead into the Common Instructional Framework. In your PLC groups, participants will share their individual reflections from their handouts and summarize a group response on chart paper. PLC groups should be prepared to report out to whole group at designated time (as determined by principals).Print and read the article?Educational Standards: To Standardize or To Customize Learning?by Charles M. Reigeluth.? Highlight sentences that you feel are critical, and discuss with others in your group or learning community.What Makes a Standard Essential?The concept of “essential standards” was introduced in an attempt to solve that of too many standards to teach in too little time. There are three main criteria that all educators agree must be met for a standard to be considered an essential standard.First, the standard must demonstrate endurance. This means the knowledge and understanding a student learns from an essential standard must endure, or last, beyond a test or class.? The understanding from an essential standard should help students make connections throughout his or her college, career, and life.Second, an essential standard must have leverage.? In other words, the knowledge and understanding a student learns from an essential standard should have wide applications and connections across other concepts and content.Lastly, an essential standard must be written clearly, taught effectively, and assessed in alignment with the instruction so that it increases a student’s readiness for success in the next grade and level of instruction.Introducing Dr. Anderson TranscriptIntroducing Dr. Anderson TranscriptIntroducing Dr. Lorin Anderson, Professor Emeritus, University of South CarolinaHello, my name is Lorin Anderson. I am the Professor Emeritus of education at the University of South Carolina, and I'm here to talk to you about the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy, what it really is, and why it's important for people who are working in the field of education. All right, before we begin this exploration, I’d like each of you to think of a subject area that you teach to a group the students. For example you might teach fifth grade reading; you might teach secondary math; you might teach fine arts; it doesn’t really make any difference. ?And then I want you to write one objective for that subject area and the students that you selected. ?And your objective should be what you believe to be the most important thing that the students should learn. You only have one choice; if there’s one thing you want students to learn in this course or in this subject area at that grade level, what would it be? I want you to turn off or stop the video at this point in time and take about three or four minutes for everybody to do this.USE THE JOURNAL TO RECORD YOUR OBJECTIVEA Common FormatAlright, now we will begin really the formal exploration of objectives and the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy. It turns out that all objectives have a common format, and you should be seeing this as you look at what you've written a few minutes ago. The subject/verb/object format: I came out of an education system where diagramming sentences was very important, and so I still look at the structure of everything that I do. We abbreviate it as SVO: the subject, the verb, and the object. The subject is the learner or the student, so we'll start by saying something like “the student will,” “the student will be able to,” “the student should,” “the student should be able to” or “the learner will be able to,” “the learner will” and so forth, and in many elementary schools this is just ingrained in teachers, so you'll see on the board things like TLW: the learner will and BAT: be able to. ?That will be the introduction to many of the objectives you see written on the board, and that basically covers the subject of the objective.Original and Revised BloomThe original Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives was intended to classify the verbs—the V part of the SVO. Knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, evaluation—for most people who have studied in education this is going to become the mantra that they are taught about the Bloom’s taxonomy. It turns out, as Bloom himself once said, that ?the actual book in which you'll find this,?The Taxonomy of Educational Objectives,?is one of the most frequently cited, least read books in American education. Everybody knows this pyramid, but few people know the book from which it came and what these things actually mean. Notice that I said previously that the taxonomy initially was originally intended to classify the verbs, but notice that these are in noun forms—knowledge, comprehension, and so forth. They really should be know, comprehend, apply, analyze, synthesize, and evaluatebecause that's where it fits within the overall scheme of things. They’re attempts to classify the verb. So as we revised the taxonomy, we decided to shift form from the noun form to the verb form. You'll see that in little bit. The other thing you’ll notice is this pyramid indicates another factor inherent in the original taxonomy. Namely, that the authors of that volume believed that knowledge was a prerequisite to comprehension; comprehension was a prerequisite for application, and all the way up. ?And so what happened in a lot of cases is people filled their curriculum with knowledge and then built on the knowledge to move to comprehension and so forth. ?Well from a practical point of view, what's going to happen eventually is you’re going to run out of time. In other words if you have a lot of knowledge and you have a little amount of time, you rarely get up to analysis and synthesis and evaluation before the time allocated to a particular subject or course runs out.And this really summarizes what I just said. The words that they use this category labels were written as nouns rather than as verbs and so we decided to rewrite the categories as verbs and we made a few changes as we went through it. There you see the original, and the arrow indicates really the pyramid that we just saw. ?But it's assumed that we’re building from knowledge up through evaluation. The Revised Bloom we have to start moving these over, and we have to figure out what to call these things. We could've obviously called knowledge “know” (K-N-O-W) but we didn't. We called it what it really is. We want kids to remember things. ?That's what the original taxonomy group meant by knowledge, “to remember things exactly the way they were presented to the students” whether the presentation was by a teacher or a student. Comprehension, we could have gone with comprehend, but we didn't. We went to understand, because understand is one of those things that is an important objective in education. We want kids to able to understand things; to make sense of things. When kids say “I don't get it,” they don't mean “I don't remember it” they mean “I don't understand it.” When they say, “I really am struggling with something,” they don’t say, “I’m struggling to remember it,” they say, “I'm struggling to understand it.” When a student jumps up in a classroom and says, “That makes no sense!” that doesn't mean they don't remember it; it means they don't understand it. So understanding replaces comprehension.The next two are straightforward. ?Application becomes applied, analysis becomes analyze, and then we were struck with synthesis. Synthesis obviously could be synthesize, but a member of the group that we work with said there’s not a lot of research on synthesis. ?And so what we basically did was to discuss after quite a while, and we came up with an important verb that is central to a lot of high-level thinking. ?But in order to do that we had to take evaluation and move it down, and then we replace synthesis with “create” that we want kids to create things. Create is kind of a cousin of synthesis, but it adds more to synthesis than just putting things together. So you simply, in order to move from the old Bloom to the new Bloom with a revised Bloom, you just have to learn a different mantra. ?Instead of “knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, evaluation,” you need to remember “remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, and create.” You’ll also see on the right hand side of this slide that there is no arrow going up, because unlike the original Bloom where everything was prerequisite to everything else, in the revised Bloom, we see all of these cognitive processes, as we call them, as tools in a tool box. That’s to say there's no necessary order in which kids use these tools, that sometimes you apply before you understand. ?As a matter of fact there is a lot of evidence and research that you think you understand, and then you try to apply it and you realize you don't understand it, but the more you try to apply it, you start to develop understand. Well, that would not work within the old Bloom because comprehension precedes application. Sometimes you evaluate in order to understand. Sometimes you create, then you apply, and then you evaluate what you've created and applied. So think of the revised Bloom as a lot more flexible than the original Bloom, and those are the two major shifts you need to make. One is from the noun forms of the verb forms and the other is away from the ridged prerequisite triangle thing to the fact that the verbs now become tools in a tool box and you don't have to do all you don't have to remember everything before you analyze. You can move these things around as you see fit.This is really the second change written down for you; because sometimes you see it you understand a little bit better than just hearing it. In other words the original taxonomy was believed to be a cumulative hierarchy—that was the phrase that they used “cumulative hierarchy” —a hierarchy in which the bottom is prerequisite to the top. We, on the other hand, as I said, see these things as cognitive tools. And I think that's an important thing for teachers to understand. You have to break away from that lock-step view of the old taxonomy to properly use the revised taxonomy.And there was a third and final change, because remember the original taxonomy only dealt with the V part of the SVO, the verb part of the subject-verb-object. ?It left the object part out. Therefore it was a one-dimensional classification system. ?But if we're going to be fully consistent with trying to understand the objectives then we need to have a second dimension that covers the objects of the statements. ?And so the revised taxonomy, unlike the original taxonomy, is a two-dimensional classification system: one dimension for the verbs; one dimension for the objects.And that really is all you need to know about the structure of the revised taxonomy and how it differs from the original taxonomy.Cognitive Process DomainNow let's take a look at these dimensions; get a little better understanding what they are. You’ve seen them in skeletal form for the verbs.The cognitive process dimension contains six categories. Notice the original taxonomy contains six categories. There was the purpose of that; if it's a revision of something you can't deviate too far, otherwise you have something completely new. And so we felt we were constrained to six categories since the original taxonomy had six categories. Each category contains two or more specific cognitive processes, and I’ll illustrate in a little bit. So you have six categories; you have two or more cognitive processes. In fact, if you add up all the cognitive processes associated with six categories, you end up with nineteen cognitive processes. ?And what we're trying to do is to limit the number of things/words that people use. If you look at a lot of objectives and standards that are written at a state level, you'll see somewhere in the neighborhood of forty five/fifty different verbs. ?Our perspective on this is that the more verbs and words you use, the less clear the communication. But if we can find a finite number of things that do what we want it to do—he mathematicians call it parsimony, a “parsimonious system” means it's the smallest number of things that you can use to understand complex systems—that’s what we were trying to do, so we’re trying to limit the number.After this came out, I had somebody send me an email. ?And in an email the person had taken a whole bunch of verbs and categorized them and so forth and said “isn't that wonderful that I've done this,” and he had something like eighty-nine or ninety or a hundred verbs, and I wrote back, and I said “that's really impressive. ?Unfortunately you’re working in exactly opposite direction from what we’re operating. We want a small number of verbs; you want to classify everything.” ?And what you'll find if you try to add more things they overlap with some of the things that are there. You are starting to get verbs that don't have any real consistent meaning. So when all six categories are considered, as I said there’s a total of nineteen cognitive processes.RememberAll right, the first one, the lowest one, in terms of complexity is “remember.” Remember means retrieving relevant knowledge from long-term memory. In other words, it's up there. It's up there because of the teaching; it’s up there because of something you read. It might be up there because of something you, a discussion you had over the dinner table at home. It got there somehow. It's there. ?And when we remember something it’s pulling something out of that memory of ours so it becomes accessible to us. That’s the act of remembering. And there are two cognitive processes: recognizing and recalling. We use the I-N-G form—for those of you that are English teachers that's called the gerund form of the verb—for the cognitive processes, and the reason we use the I-N-G form is to keep things straight. In other words if it doesn't have an I-N-G it's a major category. ?If it has an I-N-G it’s a cognitive process within a major category. We could've had “remember, recognize, recall,” but as we tried this out in pre-publication, we found out that people kept forgetting which is the category and which are the cognitive processes within the category. So you eventually can say recognize and recall, but when we write it we’re going to write it with the gerund form just to make sure we're all straight. Now why do we need two cognitive processes within remember? Why can’t we just say remember and be happy and get on with life? It turns out that recognizing and recalling are two different things, and I'll give you an example that will hopefully illustrate this. Let’s suppose you are at a social event. It might be a party or a drop in or something and you’re sitting there and talking to someone and out of the corner of your eye, you notice somebody that's walking toward you. And the closer that person gets to you, the more you become a little bit nervous and anxious, because it dawns on you that although you recognize the person, you can’t recall the name of the person, provides a very awkward setting. Well you see if recognizing and recalling were the same thing, a situation like that would never happen. ?But recognizing typically comes out of ?visual, and we're much better visual memorizers than we are verbal memorizer. So taking in the characteristics and qualities of the person seems to stay with us longer than the name of the person. So each of these cognitive processes that you’re going to see has the same type of function; that is to say that we need more than one because they’re different things. They’re different ways of processing information and they’re different ways of thinking about things.UnderstandLet's move to understand. Understand is “to construct meaning from instructional messages.” That's the goal of understand: making sense of things. It’s taking a word and not only remembering the word but knowing what the word means. A lot of times teachers when they teach vocabulary, they’re more worried about the word than what the word means. There's no evidence, for example, that teaching vocabulary by having kids write the word and then copy a definition of the word from a dictionary helps kids understand the meaning of the word. That's particularly true in English where we have multiple-meaning words all over the place. ?And to know which meaning fits where, we almost always have to figure out the context in which we’re using the word. So we're talking about understand as meaning, understand as making sense of things, understanding as going beneath what the words are to what the words mean or what the phrases are or what the phrase means. Well how did we come up with the cognitive processes for these? We basically asked ourselves and others “how do you know a kid can understand something? How do you know that a kid makes sense of something? How do you know that a kid constructs meaning?” And each one of these that I’m going to show you comes out of an answer to that particular question.Interpreting. In other words, if I tell you something and you can say it in your own words, I have a better sense that you understand it. If all you do is parrot it back the way I said it, you may have remembered it, but I don't have any confidence that you really understand it. If I give you instructions to do something and you do it exactly the way I do it, where the interpretation is from words to actions then I know that you understood what I told you to do. If you don't, then I don't think you interpret. ?And interpreting is one of those things that are related to understand.Next one: exemplifying. It's a tricky little word, but it means exactly what it says: “come up with an example or recognize an example.” If I'm teaching you something and I say I want you to give me an example of an improper fraction in mathematics. If you can give me an example that you haven't seen before, then I think yes you understand what an improper fraction is. The problem is kids don't like to do that; they don't like to be challenged or pushed, so if I say give me an example of an improper fraction, a kid might say five fourths. Why did you say five fourths? Well, five fourths was on the board, five fourths was an example used, five fourths was all over the place. Now notice that’s not understand even though he’s giving an example, that’s simply remembering an example that you've given before. So what I try to do is to force kids not to do it by remember. That’s what you’re trying to do with understand. So what I might say instead of just “give me an example of an improper fraction” I might say “give me an example of an improper fraction with a four-digit numerator.” Now notice there aren’t many examples floating around on chalk boards or white boards or smart boards or books, right that have four digits. ?Most of the examples that kids are going to get are two/three digit numerators. ?But if I can say give me one with four digits and they come up and they say “one thousand seventeen over nine hundred and thirty two,” I think you got it. You understand what an improper fraction is. ?But you always have to be concerned about the fact, are they really demonstrating understanding or are they simply regurgitating things that they've seen time and time again?The opposite almost of exemplifying is classifying. That is to say, here’s a bunch of examples. Some belong to a category and some don’t. Which ones belong to the category? Which ones don't belong to the category? This is done on Sesame Street and Electric Company all the time. Kids are given four things and asked which one doesn't belong with the others. And the others belong obviously to a category. So one is kind of coming up with examples of a category; the other one is classifying or categorizing examples into a category.Summarizing. Summarizing is understanding because it's taking a lot of information and cutting to the heart of things. When you ask kids the main idea of a paragraph, you're asking a summarizing thing. That paragraph might be a hundred and fifty words long; you wanted to come up with a main idea that might be ten words long. It’s taking large amounts of information and putting it into a small thing. From a practical perspective, I used to do a lot of direction of dissertations and the hardest thing that many students had was to write the abstract for the dissertation. Why is that hard? Well their dissertation is a hundred and fifty pages, and I'm asking them to write five hundred words that captures the hundred and fifty pages of things. That's a very difficult thing, but if you can do it and capture the essence of what the whole thing is about, that shows that you understand what it was. That’s summarizing.Inferring. This is just a fancy word for predicting. It's the notion of going beyond the information given. If I am reading a story, and I'm reading about this character in the story, and I stop reading at a particular crucial point in the story and I ask you, “What's this character likely to do next?” In other words, predict what's likely to happen based on what you already know about this character. You’re not going to be necessarily exactly right but you should say “given what I know about this character, he's not going to steal that money” and if you understand that character, that prediction is going to be right. We see a lot of inferring in mathematics—sequences of things: one, two, three, four, blank. What's going to come next? Do you understand the pattern? Do you understand the rule? Based on that rule can you make a prediction of what's going to be the next thing? If you can do that you understand what’s being presented, whether it's a sequence of numbers or a pattern of numbers or a sequence of actions in a play or a story. That's paring. How is this the same as this? How is this different from that? We talk about if you can compare something with something then you get a better understanding of not only each one but in combination. I have used with upper elementary students the following example. I say, “What are the differences among tourists, migrants, and immigrants?” And because students are so pushed toward remember what they basically do the first time I ask that question is they give me a definition of a tourist, a definition of an immigrant, and a definition of a migrant. And I say to them at that point, “That's really nice, but that's not the question I asked you. I didn’t ask you to define each one, I asked you what are the differences.” And finally they come around to the two major differences: one difference is why they are there, the purpose for their being there, and the second is the length of time they’re staying. And if you look at those two dimensions, you can say, “Ah, that’s a tourist. That’s an immigrant. That’s a migrant.” Now notice by comparing not only do I know do I learn about a tourist, but simultaneously I learn about tourists, immigrants, and migrants. That's the kind of connections we need to start working to help kids understand things. Now comparing includes contrast. A lot of people like to use the word, a lot of teachers like the phrase “compare and contrast.” Well comparing means look for similarities and differences; contrast means focuse on the differences. So compare and contrast is really redundant because what you're telling kids to do is look for the similarities and differences and then the differences again. You don't need to say that. ?Compare covers it all. ?So you’re not going to see contrast in this because it’s already a subset of comparing.And the final one is explaining. Explaining is telling people not?that?something exists or?how?it exists. Explaining is?why?it exists. If you think of the kinds of questions that little kids ask all the time, they're explaining questions. Why? Why this? Why that? It's not “don't tell me about it” it’s “tell me why.” “Why do I have to go to bed at eight o'clock” and then they always come back with “because my friend in class doesn't have to go to bed till eight thirty.” They don’t want you to tell them that bedtime is eight o'clock; that's factual, that's just the way it is. They want you to give an explanation for what you are doing as a parent. It's the same thing about rules in classrooms. Why these rules, why do we have to line up on that side of the room? I understand that we have to but tell me why. A lot of explaining objectives are in things like science because the why is a cause-effect issue. What causes what? What influences what? What impacts on what? You see explaining also in social studies. What are the causes of this action? Why are we now in Iraq? Why are we now worried about Afghanistan? They don't want details about?what’s happening, they want to know why did we get there and was that a legitimate reason to be there in the first place. Explaining also deals with consequences: what’s likely to happen? ?It’s a very important part of decision-making for kids. Before you make a good decision, we want kids to be aware of the consequences. If I do this what’s likely to happen? What are of the consequences of my actions? So explaining is really the last one.As I said the important thing here is the fact that each one of these was developed in response to the question, what evidence would you accept that a student understands what you're teaching? And there are basically seven ways to do that: they can interpret, they can exemplify, they can classify, they can summarize, they can infer, they can compare, they can explain.USE YOUR JOURNAL TO REFLECTApplyThe next verb is apply and that’s “to carry out or use a procedure in a given situation.” You apply things because you want to use the knowledge. Using knowledge is different from remembering the knowledge which is different from understanding the knowledge.? Apply is really putting this stuff into practice, and there are two verbs here, one is called executing which is basically doing it without a whole lot of thought. Eventually when you learn to do the multiplication algorithm, it takes a lot of thought initially and that’s what we call implementing, but eventually after doing about fifty problems you don't think much anymore. You just put the numbers in and turn the crank. You just execute. My best example of this is if you learn to type really well—and now it’s called keyboarding—i so if you’re keyboarding really well, your fingers are moving and you’re not thinking where they're going because it's become automatic. You’re executing. ?If you're able to execute with a keyboard that means that you can compose manuscripts on the word processer because you don't have to worry about where your fingers are going. That's automatic, that’s executing. Now you can think about what I want to say. People who don't have that ability and they only can hunt and peck and pick this finger with that finger whatever the case may be, they almost are stuck in the sense that they have to write it out first and then they have to keyboard what they’ve written on paper. Now what's happening as students are getting more technologically advanced, they're becoming better executers. So that they don't spend as much time thinking about what they're doing, and that's basically the difference between executing and implementing. Executing is doing it almost automatically; implementing is doing it and having to think as you go—that after I finish this do I do this or do I do that. ?It's a little more sophisticated apply.USE YOUR JOURNAL TO REFLECTAnalyzeAnalyze is “breaking material into its constituent parts and determining how the parts relate to one another into an overall structure or purpose.”The key thing here is without an overall structure or purpose, you never analyze. It's always a big whole, a big structure, a big amount of things. So you analyze stories. The story becomes the whole. You can analyze a word as a whole, structural analysis of the word by breaking it down into prefixes and suffixes and root words and so forth that’s breaking the whole of the word into its parts. You can analyze a word problem in mathematics. What is the relevant information in here and what’s the not-so-relevant? And United States kids don't seem to do that very well. ?If you put extra numbers into a word problem of mathematics, the kids seem to want to put that number somewhere. In other words, before they apply, they should be analyzing and figuring out what do I need to look at; what don't I need to look at. ?But we don't require that, we know that confuses them, so we only put in the word problem numbers they need to use. ?And actually what we're doing is dummying it down by saying you know I'm only going to give you this so that you can apply it. In real life problems don't come to us that way. We have to start sorting things out within the overall thing to figure out what's important, what's not important, how do I organize things, and so forth. And that leads to the three things that we have with analyze: differentiating, organizing and attributing.Differentiating is separating out within the overall structure what do I pay attention to? What don't I pay attention to? What's relevant? What’s not relevant? What's important, what's not important? If I don't know what's important then I don't know what to focus on; if I don’t focus on the right things I’m likely to make the wrong decision; I’m likely to get the wrong anizing is taking all the pieces and putting them in a way that makes sense more than just alphabetical order. It could be organized chronologically; it could be organized in terms of causes and effects. I think the reason that things like graphic organizers have become so popular recently is an attempt to give kids the vehicle that they need to start organizing things. ?But a lot of teachers like the graphic organizers because they tell kids where things go. That defeats the whole purpose. If you really want to teach kids to organize, you have to teach them how to organize for themselves. You can't give them an organization and then have them copy your organization because we’re all the way back down to remember.Attributing is really reading between the lines. When you ask a student, “Why did that author write that essay?” Was it to entertain? ?Was it to inform? It’s not just what did he say, but why did he say it. So it’s kind of an explain—updated. What was the motive of this character in this particular play or in this particular story? It’s not what did the character do, it’s again why did the character do what the character did?USE YOUR JOURNAL TO REFLECTEvaluateThen we have evaluate, which is “to make judgments based on criteria and standards.” In other words, without judgment of something there is no evaluate. A lot of people say kids make judgments all the time, actually these are more value judgments: judgments about value, judgments about worth, judgment about effectiveness, judgments about cost. So yes, kids make judgments all the time—a judgment of does it fit into a category or not is a judgment—but these are value-oriented judgments, and within that we have two different kinds of evaluating: checking and critiquing. ?And the easiest way to talk about these is very simple: you check as you go along and you critique after you finish. In other words, you check the process and you critique the product.So as I'm working on a math problem, I don't wait until the end to figure out if I’m off base. If I'm doing checking I kind of look through and I’m on step four and am I even close to where I should be? Because if I recognize I'm not even close to where I want to be because I've been checking, there’s no sense to continue to step seven because I know I'm already wrong in step four. So checking gives you an opportunity to be a little more efficient because you recognize problems and mistakes earlier, and you can make the corrections earlier instead of going through the whole thing and starting all over. The writing process has both checking and critiquing. As you’re writing, you can check, but the critiquing is using criteria you might use different traits about voice, about grammar, about mechanics, to make sure that it's right you may edit, you may revise based on critiques. You may critique movies; you may create critique of solutions to problems. Any of these things are fair game when you evaluate.USE YOUR JOURNAL TO REFLECTCreateWhich leads us to create. Create is “putting elements together to form a coherent or functional whole.” Notice the importance of coherence or functional whole is to organize elements in a new pattern or structure. There has to be some purpose to create; you just don’t be different. There is a difference between being creative and being original. A lot of people miss that distinction. To do something nobody else has ever done is original. For example, printing?War and Peace?in a book upside down and backward in pig Latin—that's original. Nobody's ever done it. ?But the reason nobody's ever done it is it serves no purpose. It serves no function. Other than the people who like to read books upside down and backwards in pig Latin and that would be a very small audience. Now within this we have three of these again. We have generating, planning, and producing. Generating is coming up with ideas. Planning is how am I going to get those ideas into something completed or something finished? Producing is actually now that I have a plan, I carry out the plan, and I finish what I set out to finish. In science, many people talk about generating as hypothesizing. In other words you generate a hypothesis. The planning is designing a study to test the hypothesis, right? And the producing is carrying out the study to see whether or not the hypothesis was supported by the data. So create is across the board. Its artistic create, scientific create, mathematical create and that's the thing about the Revised Blooms Taxonomy: it cuts across all grade levels; it cuts across all subject matter. One of our hopes is that it can start to encourage communication among groups who haven’t talked before very often like elementary teachers and middle school teachers, like science teachers and math teachers, or English teachers and art teachers.Click here?to download?Relationship of RBT terms and common definitions.The Purpose of Objectives TranscriptThe Purpose of Objectives TranscriptThe Purpose of ObjectivesThat's as far as the original taxonomy went. When we looked at the revised now, we realized why they stopped: because the object of the objectives contain the content to be learned, and when you examine content you generally focus on differences among subject matter. Most people know that mathematics, biology, physics, history, geography, art, and music all have different content, and it is the content that defines their differences. To classify the content included as the object of the objective, we need to establish categories that transcend subject matter differences. How do you recognize these differences that math is math and history is history? You come up with a classification scheme that finds similarities rather than focuses on the difference and that took us about five years to do. So it wasn't an easy thing, but we didn't want to stop halfway through.In order to form categories, we need to shift from content to knowledge. Content is subject-specific, but certain types of knowledge cut across subjects. For example there are?facts?in every subject matter, and so factual knowledge is something that cuts across all subject matters. There are facts in art; there are facts in music; there are facts in history; there are facts in math. A math fact is seven times three is twenty one. A history fact is the constitution was approved in 1789. ?But they're both facts—different facts, different subject. And so what we're trying to do is to find these types of knowledge like factual knowledge.Major DifferencesThe major difference between content and knowledge is fairly simple. Content exists outside the student; it's in books; it's in materials; it’s online. As a matter of fact, if you open a book, one of the first things you see is a thing that says?table of contents.?It tells you the contents of the book. A major problem is how to get the content inside the student. To me in many respects that's the fundamental job of teaching. How do you get what’s out there inside? And if you get it in just the way it was presented that’s remember. Remember the content exactly the way it was presented to you.When content gets inside the student it becomes knowledge. We don't carry around content; we carry around knowledge. We remember facts about biology; we remember ideas about biology; we remember skills about biology: how to use a microscope; how to do these kinds of things. All those are knowledge that we take away from our various courses. ?But the transformation of content to knowledge takes place through the cognitive processes used by the student. In other words, it’s not the teacher that makes the transformation; teachers can’t change content to knowledge. Kids do it. ?And they do it by whether they remember it, whether they understanding it, whether they apply it, whether they analyze it, whether they evaluate it; whether they create it. That's the transformation that moves content into knowledge. We borrowed heavily from cognitive psychology, and we came up with four categories of types of knowledge.A RecipeWe call one factual, and I gave an example of that just a little while ago. The next one we call conceptual; the next one we call procedural, and the last one we call metacognitive. The first three most people understand fairly easily; the last one is a little bit more difficult.Factual knowledge are the basic elements students must know to become acquainted with the discipline or solve problems in it. What are the basics of this? You need to know kind of what a numerator is in a fraction; you need to know what a fraction is. We need to know we call it a fraction; the kids need to know that if they add two numbers together the things they add are called addends. If they multiply things and things they multiply are called factors. Because if they don't just basically have that knowledge, when somebody asks them to factor something, they don't even know where to start, or if they ask a kid to find the missing addend they don’t even know what an addend is. So factual knowledge is important. It’s knowledge of terminology and knowledge of specific details and elements.Conceptual knowledge on the other hand is the inner relationships among the basic elements. That’s the categories, the patterns, the connections within that subject matter that enable the subject matter to function together. In other words fractions need to be seen in relationship to decimals because decimals are just different representations of these things called fractions. As a matter of fact the reason that they're different is because you use them differently. If I were to say to you I want you to add one-third and two-thirds, you wouldn't do that with decimals, you’d do it with fractions. One-third plus two-thirds is three thirds which is one but if you did it with decimals, it would be point three three three three three three three three three three plus point six six six six six six six six and the answer would be point nine nine nine nine nine nine nine nine nine. That's not right. OK when you add one-third and two-third you get one. You don't get point nine repeated.? But the issue here becomes the student sees that in a relationship. They see that all of these are just really the different representations of the same thing. Knowledge and classifications of categories, knowledge of principles and generalizations, knowledge of theories, models, and structures, and each one of these is a little bigger than the one before.And then we have procedural knowledge which is really a knowledge of how to do something. This is the easiest one to explain. Procedural knowledge is ”how do you do it.”. How do you ride a bike; how do you use a microscope; how do you solve a three-digit times a two-digit number problem? You have knowledge of subject-specific skills and algorithms, knowledge of subject-specific techniques and methods, knowledge of criteria to determine when to use what. All of these things are different kinds of thing. So the general category is procedural knowledge. Different subject matters call them different things. Math calls them algorithms; art calls them techniques; science calls them methods. Maybe people in industrial education calls them skills but they all have that same thing in common.Which leads us to metacognitive knowledge. This is knowledge of cognition in general as well as awareness and knowledge of your own cognition. ?In other words metacognition is what you know about yourself in relationship to what you're learning. What do you like? What don't you like? What do you do well; what don’t you do well? What strategies work for you? What strategies don't work for you? You can go and talk to a friend and say how do you study and then you go and try and you study the way this friend studies and you go well that was an interesting thing; itdidn't work for me. So it’s a filter. Metacognitive knowledge filters all this stuff to make it unique to you, to help you be a better or worse learner. Now not all metacognitive knowledge is good. Math anxiety comes out of metacognitive knowledge, that after a long period time you never got math. “I didn't get it, it makes no sense” and pretty soon somebody puts numbers in front of you and you just break out into a sweat because over time you’ve come to a realization that “I don't get it and I have no strategies to get it and I'm not very good at it.” OK that metacognitive knowledge is going to inhibit any studying of math from there on out. So if that happens by the time a kid’s ten, forget it in middle school. So metacognitive knowledge can be both helpful, and it can be hurtfulThere’s strategic knowledge. Knowledge about strategies that we have that we use to do things. As I said, study for tests, take notes, participate in class, there’s strategies for all those things, and what works for you doesn't necessarily work for me. Knowledge about cognitive tasks including appropriate contextual and conditional knowledge: In other words, how do I write an essay? How do I do a multiple choice test? How do I complete an assignment? What contextual knowledge do I need to bring to bear? And the knowledge of self: What am I interested in? What am I good at? A lot of the so-called affective things come from that. ?Self concept, attitudes, interests, values—they all come out of self knowledge.ChartNow to put this all together from a knowledge dimensions, let’s look at something very simple. A recipe. ?Everybody is familiar with recipes. This is a hot artichoke dip recipe. ?And recipes have two parts: the top part and the bottom part. The top part we call the ingredients; but in the language of the Revised Blooms Taxonomy, the top parts are called factual knowledge. These are the facts of the case. We need that; we need that; we need that. And notice there’s no organization to it; it’s just a list of things. We can put the artichoke hearts before the mayonnaise or the Parmesan cheese or whatever the case may be. It?just says before you start get all this stuff together. The bottom is completely different from the top part. It's organized, and it’s organized sequentially, and the first word of every one of those things is a verb. Verbs are action words; verbs help you do things. So the bottom part in the language of Revised Taxonomy is procedural knowledge. In all recipes are some combination of factual knowledge and procedural knowledge. If you had the factual knowledge without the procedural knowledge, you can’t do the recipe. If you have the procedural knowledge without the factual knowledge you don't have enough details to figure out how many artichoke hearts should I drain? So they work together, factual and procedural knowledge. Now, if that's all you have, you can cook but you’re not a cook. ?Because let’s suppose for example that you don't have sixteen ounces of mayonnaise you only have twelve. Where am I going to get the other four? Well, if I understand mayonnaise and I understand what mayonnaise is made of, the ingredients of mayonnaise, how it fits into a larger scheme of things, I can probably concoct four ounces of pseudo mayonnaise and stick it in with the twelve and I can get by with things. That's bringing conceptual knowledge to the recipe: knowledge of categories, knowledge of connections. Parmesan cheese: do I see that as Parmesan cheese just because the label says Parmesan cheese or do I understand what makes Parmesan cheese, Parmesan cheese, and how Parmesan cheese is different from cheddar cheese or different from ricotta cheese or whatever the case may be. And If I start seeing those connections among the ingredients I now have conceptual knowledge. Conceptual knowledge takes someone who can cook and makes them someone who is a cook, and that's the way it should be.Metacognitive is that little thing that says “optional.” “garlic salt optional.” How do you know that you should put it or not? It's up to you. Do you like garlic? Do you not like garlic? Do you like the taste of garlic? It doesn’t even tell you how much because that's also up to you. ?And that's how idiosyncratic metacognitive knowledge is, and by making decisions like that based on your metacognitive, you actually if you really are interested in this, you can become a chef.So factual and procedural allows you to cook, conceptual allows you to be a cook, metacognitive allows you to be a chef, if you are so inclined. But notice when they all come together it's a entire set of types of knowledge that we should be building in all of our courses whether it's cooking, whether it's math, whether it's in English, whether it's in science. We have kids in science that basically go through science on a factual procedural basis. They know the facts, they know all the skills, they don't understand a thing. ?And without understanding they cannot move to an appreciation of science. They won’t use it in their ordinary lives; they won’t figure out in terms of “why I need to eat better, why I need exercise.” That would be the metacognitive application of science. Those are the connections that we typically don't make, and we need to make, and that’s why conceptual and metacognitive is so difficult. Notice that artichoke hearts, mayonnaise, cheese, and garlic salt—the content of the recipe—appear twice. ?They appear at the beginning as an ingredient; they appear when you use them later on.? This basically is just the fact up above; the procedure is next; then you have the ingredients as classes are categorizes in classifications. This is called conceptual knowledge. I talked about understanding Parmesan cheese means seeing Parmesan cheese in relation to other types of cheeses. And finally metacognitive knowledge is your unique knowledge of the recipe based on your experience and enables you to decide whether or not to add garlic salt and how much to add if you want to. That's why we have four types of knowledge. And when you combine the cognitive process dimension with the knowledge dimension you get a two-dimensional table that we call the taxonomy table.?Knowledge is down the left hand side; the cognitive process categories are across the top; underneath the cognitive process categories you have the gerunds that talk about the specific cognitive processes. And if you add them all up, you will find there are nineteen of those gerunds, as I mentioned before. There are six major categories of cognitive processes; there are four major types of knowledge, factual, conceptual, procedural and metacognitive. For ease of reference, we use letter/number combinations to refer to cells of the taxonomy table. And so because we come out of mathematics, the first one always is the row, the second one is always the column. So in A1 is row A which is factual knowledge; column 1 which is remember. Objectives in that A1 cell, are objectives where the emphasis is on having students remember factual knowledge. There’s a lot of that out there in our curriculum right now. B2 is understand conceptual knowledge; C3 is procedural knowledge. ?D6 is create, and create almost requires—because it is your own thing—some metacognitive knowledge to create. If you’re just following a way of doing it, you’re creating a procedural knowledge—that’s a C6— I'm not sure that that's really create at all. You’re just following the way somebody else does. To write like Ernest Hemingway writes is not to be creative it's to write like Ernest Hemingway writes. So in essence this is the whole thing. What you're trying to do is to use this to get an understanding of your objectives.Now I haven’t mentioned standards, I need to make a couple comments on standards and then this first session will be over. I’ve been talking about objectives, objectives, objectives. Why, because to me standards are nothing more than mandated objectives. In other words standards are objectives that other people think are important whether you do or not. And about a couple decades ago people got crazy and went into the standards movement, and all of the sudden teachers were inundated with mandated objectives. And so to differentiate them from objectives that teachers came up with, they gave them the name standards. These are the standards that we expect teachers to teach. All of these things I'm talking about apply to standards why because standards are objectives. They are just a specific type of objectives. If you’re given standards, one of the ways to better understand the standards is to look at the standards through the lens of the taxonomy table. Where does it fit? How many of my standards fit in B2? How many fit in A1? How many fit in A4? Where did the things fit? And that gives you a really good understanding of the way in which these things are organized so that you can have an informed way of looking at standards. It also helps you if you're trying to come up with your own objectives. What you see with these twenty four cells are the possibilities that you have in developing objectives for a particular course. A lot of our objectives are A1 objectives. A lot of them are maybe C3 objectives. If you think of that recipe I just gave you, we basically have an A1, C3 combo. TheA1 is at the top of the recipe and then you just follow the procedure, you apply the procedure, which is a C3, and that's the way you cook. ?That’s the way you make it through. So many of our kids are basically getting an education which is an A1, C3 combo and if you look at those as two cells out of 24, the rest of the cells are missed opportunities. Opportunities that we could help students develop but we simply either don't have the time or the inclination to do so.What’d I'd like you to do now is to go back to the objective that you wrote at the beginning. If we remember back that far, about an hour ago. Rewrite the objective using language of the Revised Bloom's Taxonomy. Make sure it has an S, a V, and an O. Make sure the V is one of the verbs that either of the major categories or the nineteen cognitive processes. Once it’s rewritten, look at the taxonomy table and place it in what you believe to be an appropriate cell. Is it an A1? Is it an A2? Is it a B2? Is it a C3? Where does it fit? And that will give you a first approximation of trying to see how the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy helps you make sense and talk about the objectives that you believe to be important.Thank you!How the Two Dimensions Work TogetherAs you begin to learn the taxonomy table, you will see that the dot represents one of the 24 possible learning opportunities for students within the two dimensions. For ease of reference, we use letter-number combinations to refer to cells in the Taxonomy Table.The letter is always the row, and the number is always the column.A1 is row A which is factual knowledge and Column 1 which is remember.B2 is conceptual knowledge and understanding.C3 is procedural knowledge and apply.D6 is metacognitive knowledge and create.? Create almost always can be found in metacognitive knowledge because it is very reflective and involves one doing their own thing.The two dimensions in RBT work together and demonstrate how objectives can be organized and aligned. Remember, standards are nothing more than mandated objectives.? In essence, what you are trying to do when using this table is to get an understanding of where objectives lie in the learning process.One way to better understand the standards is to look at the standard or objective through the lens of the taxonomy table by asking, “Where does it fit?”? For example, a teacher may ask his or herself, “How many of my standards or objectives fit in A1, B2, A4 and so forth?” This gives you a good understanding of the way the standards are organized and written.So many students are getting an education that is an A1/C3 combo. If you look at those as 2 cells out of the entire 24, the rest of the cells are missed opportunities –opportunities that we must help students.Summary TranscriptSummary TranscriptHow do you know your students understand?Reflect upon this question and make a list in your journal.? What do you observe from your students to know they “understood” your instruction or activities?Learning OutcomesLearning outcomes and increased student achievement are met when there is a purposeful process that pays close attention to the content and student cognitive type, and aligns with what is written, what is taught, and what is assessed.? The Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy is such a process.? Mouse over each component of the process for more details.The most difficult category: UnderstandNow discuss your list of evidences with teachers in your group or PLC.? Do you see connections between your answers and these verbs? These seven verbs fall under the category of UNDERSTAND.?? Some people think you cannot measure understanding; this is untrue as you can see with Revised Bloom’s.? If a student can explain, compare, infer, summarize, classify, exemplify, and interpret, the student is demonstrating a level of understanding.Vignette 1We are now going to explore two vignettes, the first dealing with a one-paragraph story and the second with a road sign. You will be asked to interpret the meaning of these vignettes. As you discuss these, you will relate with how students view and interpret information using the set of lens specific to their knowledge structure or schema.Now that you and your group have read the vignettes, think about and answer the following questions.The correct answer for the first question is Brenda. There is only a correct answer for the first question.? The reason for this is that the question requires little more than remembering what was read. What were your answers for the second question referencing the word?lull? There will likely be several. All of the answers are paraphrases of the same general idea.? This question requires some level of understanding.? What were your answers to the third question? What were some suggestions for the title of the story?What titles did your group come up with? Did you have titles such as “The Musical Quartet” or “The Card Players”?Notice how focusing on the same words can produce different answers. It depends on your interpretation.? If you leaned more towards a musical interpretation you may have consideredThe cards had musical notes on them.The stand was one to hold the music book.The diamonds might have been thought of as a ring on the finger.The score might have been a reference to a musical compositionNow, if you were thinking about playing cards, you might have interpretedCards as a deck of cardsStand as a steadfast positionDiamond as referenced to a specific suit in a deckScore as points towards a winning gameWhat did we learn from the previous vignette?? We now know that understanding does not reside in the materials that students read.? Understanding depends on the lens from which students view the materials.? To change understanding, we must change the lens.? It is our responsibility as educators to help students see things in a certain way.? Finally, we learned that understand and analyze are so closely related.? Frankly, we tend to analyze in order to increase our understanding.Vignette 2Just before you go across almost any bridge in the Carolinas, regardless of its length, you will encounter this sign.? What does the Highway department expect us to learn from the sign?Take a moment and write what you think is the intended message.Using the RBT Verb categories, there could be several intended messages from the Highway Department.? Mouse over each verb to read the possible intentions.Without an objective, it is likely that none of these possibilities will be actualized.? Just because a person remembers the sign doesn’t mean they can change their driving (apply) as needed (analyze).? In terms of learning, then, a focus on the verb is actually more important than emphasizing the content.? In many respects, content is a means to an end, not an end itself.? Simply stated, knowledge depends on how the students process the content they encounter both in and outside of schools and classrooms.The sign is content.? What we want students to learn is knowledge. Earlier we mentioned that conceptual knowledge is knowledge of categories and their relationships.? Read the following by Susan Feldman about the inherent need of humans to classify things and form categories in order to make sense of the world around us.Standards, Instruction and Assessment AlignmentThe use of Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy increases the probability of improved validity of assessment and improved quality of instruction through the alignment of instructional objectives, instructional activities/materials, and assessments.Post-assessment and ReflectionThis module addressed how the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy Table was used to map the content standards to the appropriate dimension and cognitive process. To construct a comprehensive understanding of how Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy is critical to understanding the new North Carolina Essential Standards we encourage you to visit or revisit the?Understanding the Standards module.Now that you have completed this module, take a few minutes to reflect on what you have learned and respond by completing the third column of the?KWL chart.? At the end of this module are additional resources that may further assist you in understanding how to effectively use and enhance the use of Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download