PME 833 Module 1 Post
For my evaluation of Bloom’s Taxonomy, please join me in a
somewhat unusual educational context of Apprenticeship learning.
Many students who are drawn into the Apprenticeship learning
pathways are not your typical academic high achievers. They tend to be hands-on learners who prefer
to be physically engaged, rather than engaged in a world of conversational self-expression
and written reflection. It is no wonder they do not tend to do well
in traditional classrooms because, as Case, 2013, points out, the misuse of
Bloom’s Taxonomy often leads teachers to require mastery of lower order skills
before progressing to higher order skills (The Unfortunate Consequences of
Bloom’s Taxonomy, 197). The idea of
waiting for a complete grounding in knowledge before being given an opportunity
for practical application completely ignores Apprenticeship students’ learning
style and is a misinterpretation of Bloom’s Taxonomy. According to Krathwhol, it was never meant to
shelter those who are working at modified levels from having to engage in appropriately
levelled critical though but rather it’s intent is to provide ways collective
meaning and thinking about teaching and learning (A Revision of Bloom’s
Taxonomy, 2).
Frustrated by the school experience, Apprenticeship students
are, quite often lead to make follow the assumptions of their own “readiness”
for post secondary education or about their intellect in general. Those who are brave, desperate or stubborn
enough overcome this negative perception often find some appeal in
apprenticeship learning pathways because they can learn WHILE doing, and don’t
have to, necessarily, wait for the green light to enter the next level. They can enter a world where experimentation,
trial and error and even failure can inform their critical thought about their
trades.
As an Employment Counsellor, I cannot resist making comment
about the interest profile of most Apprenticeship students, which tends to be
driven by the need to have tangible results with physical things. How often do we ensure that these students
are given personality-matching opportunities for Applicationing, Analysis,
Synthesis or Evaluation? Can cognitive
process not also take place with hands-on?
When I think about the popularity of Project-Based, Place-Based and
Experiential learning, even to some degree in flipped classrooms, I think it
can. However, it takes us far from the
attractive teacher-safe place Bloom’s Taxonomy where we can, at least,
confidently progress up a hierarchy as a way to organize teaching. And, it offers a less-messy assessment
process.
Again, putting on my Employment Counsellor hat, I see that
the teaching profession has a high concentration of those interested in “Conventional”
interest and personality types. What I
mean by that is that teachers, on mass, have likely used Bloom’s Taxonomy
because it is highly satisfying to their own drives and motivators which bends
towards logic order and sequence. The
Taxonomy written by teachers, validated by teachers and chosen by teachers who
have decades of bondage to the idea creates a dangerous professional
group-think mentality. It has become
the status quo and one of the reasons that Apprenticeship students reject the
idea of “more school”.
What Bloom’s Taxonomy could offer Apprenticeship students,
if used in it’s true intent, is a guide for teachers to scrutinize their own
practice. In other words, it can help
the teacher to use critical thought in his or her own methods and
activities. This is important in
Apprenticeship studies because there is still a high need for “lower level”
skills on the Taxonomy, such as Knowledge and Comprehension, but it can be a
visual reminder to the teacher to ensure that the learning activities haven’t
skipped any vital steps in the pursuit of high order skills that involve
critical thinking. After all, who would
want a journeyperson, such as carpenter or a hairstylist who has had lots of
experimentation without the proper knowledge grounding his or her practice?
Krathwhol (2002) gave an analysis was helpful in my critical
thinking about Bloom’s Taxonomy because it gave an important historical context
of when it was designed and who contributed to it . In the 1950’s, according to Krathwhol, the
Taxonomy was born to create a common language, provide the basis for
assessment, give meaning to goals and provide a range of ways to teach and
evaluate (A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy:
An Overview, 2). This was good and
necessary work for the time, but I think we need to practice what we preach and
add some of our own critical thinking about Bloom’s Taxonomy and the many versions
that have sprung forth since. I think it
is particularly important for the needs of hands-on learners, like Apprenticeship
students. I believe new conceptions are
needed for more modern and practical learning opportunities, such as Project Based
and Experiential Learning. Here things
don’t unfold in the neat and tidy confines of a step-by-step process, or in the
progression of a Taxonomy but are far more likely to engage the student
throughout the knowledge building and application phases.
No comments:
Post a Comment