Comments on: Simply Superstition

By: lowell

lowell — Sun, 14 Oct 2007 03:06:51 +0000

I”m not following this conversation about Bloom’s Taxonomy.

Bloom’s Taxonomy is a really good organizational structure for thinking about various levels of learning outcomes. It’s not a theory. It’s not an explanation of “how a student learns.” The purpose of Bloom’s is to try to organize desired cognitive outcomes in a heirarchy of engagement.

I’m not following the “using the words” thing …

By: Tippi

Tippi — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 23:46:31 +0000

I, as an undergrad, was also forced to incorporate Bloom’s into every lesson plan. But I never got the feeling we were being told that using these words was actually how a student learns. I thought the purpose of using the words and the different levels was to keep the teachers on their toes by challenging students to think deeper about topics by analyzing and synthesizing. I don’t know that any of the given word choices actually reaches these said ‘learning styles’. I always felt they just gave a different perspective on things.

By: How does this happen? « Madscientist’s Log

How does this happen? « Madscientist’s Log — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:16:11 +0000

[...] October 12th, 2007 Mass mis-communication are common in education Dr. Lowell has pointed some out here and here. So the big question is how do incorrect pieces of information get accepted as urban legend for teachers? Do teachers want to believe these ideas so bad that that they will use poorly researched information. [...]

By: lowell

lowell — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 00:30:17 +0000

There’s nothing wrong with Bloom’s Taxonomy. Or Gagne’s Nine Events of Instruction.

They’re organizing principles, but they are not supported by the kind of research that NCLB *requires* of Educational professionals.

The “Learning Pyramid” is problematic because it makes claims regarding causality in a specific and unambiguous (numeric) manner. That’s the bogosity.

By: dancingnancy533

dancingnancy533 — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 23:10:04 +0000

Wow…I feel like a child who finally realized that Santa Claus is in all reality your parents putting presents under the tree. Bloom’s Taxonomy was pounded in my head so much that I just accepted it. In the future, I need to be more critical of what I accept to be true. I wonder if some of the other things I learned about education are also myths.

By: Joe McConda

Joe McConda — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 22:51:05 +0000

Sorry….I must have have accidentally pushed “submit” in mid sentence. I was just saying that it seems to make sense that when you show someone else what you learned, it becomes more internalized. Teachers can certainly learn from their students and in turn teach others what they learned.

I suppose the lesson learned here is to make sure that there is credible research behind anything we espouse as educational doctrine. And then again, there is the question as to whether or not teaching is an art or a science?…….

By: Joe McConda

Joe McConda — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 22:45:31 +0000

Another famous musician once wrote in a song called “Kodachrome”…

“When I think back on all the crap I learned in high school (college), it’s a wonder I can think at all. And though my lack of education hasn’t hurt me none, I can read the writing on the wall.” Paul Simon

Thanks for pointing out the crap.

I’ve been led to believe that Bloom’s is THE standard especially when it comes to writing test questions.
I remember when I did my student teaching in 2000, the learning pyramid was on a laminated poster in every classroom. I read the link you gave me and see what you meant about the fallacy. However, while the pyramid doesn’t stand as credible, I would say, just from personal experience that