Tag Archives: School Reform

The Potential of Bloom’s Taxonomy (Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain) “Surprise” Educational Reforms are Possible

The excerpts that follow may be found in the original source material.

Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals–Handbook 1 [the] cognitive domain. New York, NY: David McKay, Inc.

Historical Perspective 

The idea for this classification system was formed at an informal meeting of college examiners attending the 1948 American Psychological Association Convention….  This meeting became the first of a series of informal annual meetings of college examiners.  Gathering at a different university each year and with some changes in membership, this group … considered the problems involved in organizing a classification of educational objectives….  [Although the members of this cohort (including Benjamin S. Bloom) have accepted responsibility for producing the taxonomy], ‘credit’ for ideas, suggestions, and sound criticism should be distributed more widely among all those who have attended one or more meetings of the group. (pp. 4-5)

[As indicated], this Handbook is truly a group product.  It is the direct outgrowth of the thinking of over thirty persons who attended the taxonomy conferences.  It is based on the work of … test constructors, curriculum workers, and [practitioners].  Several hundred readers of the preliminary edition [i.e. 1000 copies] … contributed criticisms, suggestions, and illustrative materials. (p. 9)

Therefore, “we” ought to think — long and hard — before we reinvent the wheel!  In recent months, I have read several posts which convey an array of confusing alternatives to the “classic” framework (i.e. classification schemes for developing curriculum and subsequent … learning experiences).  It is doubtful that a few misguided (ouch) individuals have conceptualized a more rational approach to enhance the learning experiences of “all” children.  In addition to many misinformed practitioners, I am sure that few political operatives (including those pressing for more testing) possess a fundamental understanding of how the classic framework (i.e. Blooms Taxonomy) may be applied to maximize the outcomes of schooling in a global society.  As described above, many dedicated people worked (for several years) to construct a classification system that “remains” relevant as the 21st century unfolds.  Out of respect for the innovators whom contributed to the 1956 framework, “we” ought to (re)examine the original material “before advocating alternatives”.

The rapid pace of technological change and the growing interconnectedness of communication systems throughout the world necessitates that dynamic curriculums materialize in our schools.  Dynamic instructional programs are considerate of global affairs, indicative of social and workplace requirements and responsive to the needs of students.  Such programs maximize the potential of students by providing them with multiple pathways to success.  Therefore, “we” ought not place an emphasis on prepackaged curriculums (or standardized tests).  Shifting our focus away from “canned” learning by placing our sights (i.e. goals) on educational reforms that perpetuate dynamic instructional programs can be easily accomplished when “all” stakeholders are properly informed about the applications associated with the taxonomy developed by Bloom et al.

Still Reading? — That’s Great!  I shall strive to overcome my weariness and begin framing “our” conceptual doctrine.

We must not rebel against all testing; testing is most appropriate when measuring those outcomes that are associated with knowledge, comprehension, and the application of “essential” knowledge and/or skills (i.e. competencies).  These fundamental tiers of Bloom’s 1956 hierarchical taxonomy are essential pre-requisites to three additional and progressively more complex outcomes (i.e. analysis, synthesis and evaluation) that comprise the classic framework.  Outcomes which align with the latter categories are indicative of “higher-order” thought processes which are enhanced when students engage in independent and/or socially charged learning experiences (which are not conducive to standardized assessment strategies).  Each of these “six” hierarchical categories are composed of several sub-categories which are also organized as hierarchical pre-requisites to those that follow.

Accordingly,

… simpler behaviors may be viewed as components of the more complex behaviors….  [So], behaviors of type A [Knowledge] form one class, behaviors of type AB [Knowledge and Comprehension] form another class, while behaviors of type ABC [Knowledge, Comprehension & Application] form still another class [etc.]. (pp. 16,18).

It is essential that “we” conceptualize the taxonomy as being comprised of two distinct (i.e. Dichotomous) halves if we are to comprehend the potential of establishing a contemporary framework for teaching and learning.  As such, the lower three categories of Bloom’s Taxonomy are indicative of learning experiences which are fundamentally Teacher-centered (or Competency-based).  While the latter three categories of this framework are … aligned with Student-centered learning.  Therefore, assessment strategies (including the utilization of performance-based instruments such as procedural checklists) that are aligned with the acquisition of “fundamental” knowledge and skills ought to be employed “until” students can demonstrate that they are capable of “applying” the target competency.  However, “if” our society intends to perpetuate and evaluate higher-order thought processes (which are indicative of progressively more complex applications of knowledge and skills); then, we must sanction strategies for learning (and assessment) that are aligned with the unique characteristics “being developed” by individuals.  Thus, the stage has been set!  We ought to consider the potential of applying Bloom’s Taxonomy to perpetuate a Dichotomous framework for teaching and learning!

Want to learn more about initiating a Dichotomous Instructional Paradigm?

Sample/Purchase my work(s) @ http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/kennethfetterman

Follow Me/Read more posts on my Blog @ https://kennethfetterman.wordpress.com

 

1 Comment

Filed under Blooms Taxonomy, Curriculum and Instruction, Education, Instructional Design, professional Development, School Reform Initiatives & Professional Development Strategies, Teaching, The Common Core

Practitioners Must Be Prepared To Fight — (for Public Schools)!

In defending public education “against corporate take over initiatives” — We must establish Democratic Organizations in our schools/districts. The power to make decisions (about all aspects of schooling) ought to mirror the democratic frameworks we have established to maintain our freedoms and perpetuate Democracy in government. So! How do we go about moving toward this goal (i.e. independence)? Educators must conduct (site-based) action research, learn to apply theoretical constructs in their classrooms/schools, and keep their philosophy of education relevant. Practitioners must also continue to improve their instructional techniques (i.e. craft).

I am in agreement with “most of the comments” posted on various Blogs about the “motives of corporate entities”! However, I believe that in many ways EDUCATORS have taken the “poor me” position. May I encourage all practitioners to “fight” for their freedom (against mandates), and for the PUBLIC SCHOOLS that have blessed our nation (with strong independent thinkers) for decades.

Has anyone considered the significance of preparing (to fight)? I spent more than TEN years developing the means (i.e. mechanisms) required to “prepare” practitioners. However, I cannot force them to “prepare” for the battles ahead. I shall make a declarative statement to “BOTH” sides (i.e. public and private entities)–PREPARE TO DEFEND YOUR INTERESTS!
Sample/Purchase my books on educational reform/teacher training @ http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/kennethfetterman

THOSE INDIVIDUALS THAT STUDY (i.e. PREPARE) WILL PREVAIL …

2 Comments

Filed under Classroom Management, Curriculum and Instruction, Education, Inspirational, professional Development, School Reform Initiatives & Professional Development Strategies, Teaching, The Common Core

Comments About Loss of Special Education Teachers (in B.C.) & Increases in # of SN Students

Thank You–for posting my comment A.C.! View original post @ http://andrewchernoff.wordpress.com

I commented: I’m not sure we should label (many) students as “special needs” (i.e. S.N.).  Let me explain; all students ought to be treated equal!  When we label children (for life) — then, we actually perpetuate their needs.  I taught in a maximum security, juvenile justice setting and my students definitely had special needs.  How did I respond (as a vocational/technology education instructor)?  I treated all of my students just like I would a student at the college level. –(that is to say)– I had “high” expectations for their success.

I think that (in many cases) — once the SN label is applied to students “our” (collective) expectations for their success in the world decreases.  Thus, “they” are doomed to fail as productive members in our society.  LET ME CLEARLY STATE: I am not saying  that “some” students will not succeed in overcoming their disadvantages!  I am making a general statement regarding the harmful effects of setting low expectations for special need students.  OK!

Then, there is the issue of funding SN students; (with budgets tightening) most administrators cannot afford the loss of funding for “their” special needs population (and that is a problem).  Before I made this declarative statement, I checked out the facts.  Source: http://www.ehow.com/facts_5962286_financial Under the section: Cost per Student–it is stated that: “States vary in the amount of funding per student.  In the state of Washington, each school [district] receives over $3,500.00 per general education student and more than twice that amount for each special needs student.”

There are no incentives to remove students from SN programs into mainstream classes within the “general” student body (and society).  Yes, I know many of these students do succeed via mainstreaming “policy initiatives”!  However, I believe that — the incentive to declare “more” individuals as having special needs — “is tempting”.  Let’s reconsider the term special needs and focus on educational reforms that take into account the needs of all students.  My recent post dated Nov 21st-2013 (“Adapting Instructional Mechanisms to Accommodate Students with Special Needs”) is available @ https://kennethfetterman.wordpress.com

I believe that all educators ought to become proficient at adapting their instruction to accommodate students with special needs.  We don’t always need a “special education” teacher to address this need. $$$  I shall not even go into the role that poverty has played in the lives of (otherwise normal children).

2 Comments

Filed under Classroom Management, Curriculum and Instruction, Education, professional Development, School Reform Initiatives & Professional Development Strategies

Domestic & International Concerns About Teacher Training

Domestic Considerations

Despite decades of subsidizing educational reforms in the United States, there remains an on-going yearning for effective results.  The limitations associated with funding change strategies to address specific populations (or issues) have been compounded by inherent disparities among service providers.  Such problems are exacerbated by variations in the attributes of pre-service teacher education programs among institutions and across disciplines within specific institutions.  Unless “we” address the issue of differences among teacher training systems in our schools and colleges, future attempts to bring about educational reforms are likely to be doomed by successive waves of novel proposals that have no significant impact upon realizing our goal of systemic change.

Furthermore, educational programs in the United States have been plagued by a continuous stream of authoritative legislation such “no child left behind” and the “race to the top” mandates which affect the professional behavior of practitioners.  Thus, a top down administrative hierarchy of federal, state, and local stratum have continuously endorsed round after round of policy initiatives “without” input from practitioners who must implement proposed reforms.  These shortcomings are being perpetuated by an over-reliance upon textbooks and/or teacher-centered instructional mechanisms (i.e. lecture, tutorials, standardized tests, etc.) that do not give adequate consideration to the socially dynamic contexts students encounter outside of school. As such, pre-service training programs are skewed toward mastering subject specific knowledge, while less attention is given to developing the professional competence of teachers.

International Considerations

A report published by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) authenticates the reality of “massive teacher shortages … in Sub-Saharan Africa, the Arab States and South Asia …” that may impede goals “to provide every child” in these regions “with a good quality primary [school] education”….  Even in countries such as China, Brazil and India which will need “fewer teachers” in the coming decades because of “declining school-age populations”; UNESCO recognizes the potential to improve education quality by investing more resources to train teachers and improve working conditions in target regions (UNESCO: Institute for Statistics, 2006, p.3).  Unfortunately, many countries have yet to establish a framework of fundamental schooling.  Given this fact, imagine the potential number of secondary practitioners that must be trained around the globe!

For more information about training teachers and revolutionizing educational programs in the 21st century; you may sample/purchase resource materials via my author page at: http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/kennethfetterman

These materials are also available via the following distribution affiliates;

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Blooms Taxonomy, Classroom Management, Curriculum and Instruction, Education, Instructional Design, professional Development, School Reform Initiatives & Professional Development Strategies, Teaching, The Common Core