I’m not really sold on Bloom’s Taxonomy
Posted April 1, 2013on:
I’ve always been slightly uncomfortable with Blooms. As with any hierarchy (and Maslow’s comes to mind, after a few years of teaching Psychology) its possible and common to skip levels, and move along, or up and down in discordance with the convention of gratifying one level before moving on up. I happen to think that this organising hierarchy is wrong in this day and age and that we might now need to revisit the revisited Blooms yet again. Knowledge acquisition, or remembering, in this day and age is now not going to be the cognitive base level any more. Indeed, the need to acquire skills in a set order is, in my view a defunct praxis. We discussed Blooms during an #EdchatSA tweet up on teaching critical thinking skills in schools.
I found this new model recently, and its one I much prefer. It places creativity at the centre with all the other former levels arranged around it like cogs all able to engage with the main ‘creativity’ cog. Put together by Cathy Shrock, I think it represents much more of a reality that the current pyramidal Blooms. As Cathy says,
Since the cognitive processes are meant to be used when necessary, and any learner goes up and down the categories as they create new knowledge, I was thinking another type of image might be more explanatory.
Here is my draft of the idea of the “interlocking of the cognitive processes” or the “Cogs of Cognition.
Does the traditional ‘Pyramid’ Blooms negate the importance of creativity to the other skills, and further, is not, or should not, creativity link to all the other levels? I think so, which is why I’m a fan of Cathy’s new model. We don’t need to flip blooms so that creativity is the first cognitive skill, we just need to get rid of the hierarchy that might well be (as is the case with many other traditional hierarchies) redundant in this day and age.