8) Newton123 / Electromagnetism / Relativity / Quantum - (N-Em-R-Q)

Transcription

1 Gr8 Earth Science Power Standards: 1) Scale - Space+Time 2) Dimensional Analyses 3) Sci+Eng Practices / CER 4) Matter & Energy Flow Through Systems 5) GeoBioChemical Evolution 6) GeoFeature Genesis 7) Wx+Cli 8) Earth's Place in the Universe / Cosmology Behavior Standards: respect engagement completion Gr8 Psci Power Standards: 1) Scale - Space+Time 2) Dimensional Analyses 3) Sci+Eng Practices / CER 4) Matter & Energy Flow Through Systems 5) Speed / Velocity / Acceleration - (S-V-A) 6) Momentum / Force - (p-f) 7) Work / Energy / Power - (W- E-P) 8) Newton123 / Electromagnetism / Relativity / Quantum - (N-Em-R-Q) 9) Particles / Force Carriers / Photonics - (Pt-Fc-Ph) 10) Chemistry / Cosmology - (Ch-Cm) 11) Earth Systems = Es

2 Behavior Standards: respect engagement completion proficiency scales - NGSS-AB (assessment boundaries) rubrics: blooms (1956) for rubrics rev: 2001 Anderson & Krathwohl 4 = creating 3.5 = evaluating 3 = analyzing 2.5 = applying 2 = understanding 1 = remembering sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&ved=0ahukewjz3tc4se_bahxihtqihanibssqfgh cmay&url=https%3a%2f%2fmontclair.instructure.com%2fcourses%2f50838%2ffiles%2f %2Fdownload%3Fverifier%3DoIeMxv984shPKXeE72jvjcgrTYcHCpYVRCHSFoFX%26wra p%3d1&usg=aovvaw0g-4bslcih2fx4wfehotr2

3 Revised Bloom s Taxonomy A former student of Bloom s, Lorin Anderson, worked with cognitive psychologists, curriculum and assessment specialists, and educational researchers to update Bloom s taxonomy of the cognitive domain (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). The old and new versions of the taxonomy are shown below. The new terms are defined as: Remembering: Retrieving, recognizing, and recalling relevant knowledge from longterm memory. Understanding: Constructing meaning from oral, written, and graphic messages through interpreting, exemplifying, classifying, summarizing, inferring, comparing, and explaining. Applying: Carrying out or using a procedure through executing, or implementing. Analyzing: Breaking material into constituent parts, determining how the parts relate to one another and to an overall structure or purpose through differentiating, organizing, and attributing. Evaluating: Making judgments based on criteria and standards through checking and critiquing. Creating: Putting elements together to form a coherent or functional whole; reorganizing elements into a new pattern or structure through generating, planning, or producing. (Forehand, 2005).!!

4 In addition to reframing the terminology from nouns to verbs that describe the cognitive processes individuals use to learn (remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating), the revised taxonomy also adds a second dimension outlining a knowledge dimension defining the kind of knowledge to be learned (factual, conceptual, procedural, and meta-cognitive). A summary of this revised two-dimensional taxonomy is shown below: Copyright (c) 2005 Extended Campus -- Oregon State University Designer/Developer - Dianna Fisher! References Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of educational objectives: Complete edition, New York: Longman. Forehand, M. (2005). Bloom's taxonomy: Original and revised. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved June 10, 2013 from

5 Artifact - Wilson D2L Forum Assignment Comparative Taxonomy Chart Objectives - Students will Anderson/Krathwohl Dee Fink s Knowledge Cognitive Level 1. Develop an awareness of the phantom curriculum - which includes exposure to media and how media can be used to shape and manipulate opinion, or initiate related discussion 2. Pinpoint personal interests within a media genre, and find and select related media that qualifies, or has the potential to qualify, as phantom curriculum 3. Be able to choose and pinpoint positive examples of the phantom curriculum, particularly those related to the human condition at global levels. 4. Develop an awareness of what topics are currently portrayed in popular media, how those controversial topics are depicted, offering examples, and find supportive research materials that offer extended information 5. Dissect the experience through personal reflections, peer discussions, and interactive peer presentations 6. Develop and demonstrate instructional leadership abilities by engaging in and leading professionally focused conversations on controversial issues related to the phantom curricula 7. Demonstrate appropriate interactive and collaborative working skills 8. Use D2L software effectively to facilitate related dialogue and discussions among peers 1. Factual 1.a. Understanding 1.b. Evaluating 1. Factual 2. Conceptual 4. Metacognitive 1.a. Understanding 1.b. Analyzing 2.a. Analyzing 4.a. Analyzing 4.b. Evaluating 2. Conceptual 2.a. Analyzing 2.b. Evaluating 1. Factual 1.a. Understanding 1.b. Analyzing 1.c. Evaluating 3. Procedural 4. Metacognitive 2. Conceptual 3. Procedural 1. Factual 3. Procedural 1. Factual 3. Procedural 3.a. Evaluating 3.b. Creating 4.a. Understanding 4.b. Evaluating 2.a. Applying 3.a. Creating 1.a. Remembering 1.b. Applying 3.a. Applying 3.b. Evaluating 1.a. Remembering 1.b. Applying 3.a. Applying Foundational Foundational Application Integration Learning how to learn Application Integration Human Condition Foundational Integrating Integrating Human Dimension Caring Learning how to learn Application Integrating Human Dimension Factual Application Integration Caring Factual Application Objectives were categorized in two taxonomies Anderson/Krathwohl s, and L. Dee Fink s From Lilly North 07 Presentation/ Beyond Bloom Session - All rights reserved Wilson, Leslie O.

6 A Model of Learning Objectives based on A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Among other modi ications, Anderson and Krathwohl s (2001) revision of the original Bloom s taxonomy (Bloom & Krathwohl, 1956) rede ines the cognitive domain as the intersection of the Cognitive Process Dimension and the Knowledge Dimension. This document offers a three-dimensional representation of the revised taxonomy of the cognitive domain. Although the Cognitive Process and Knowledge dimensions are represented as hierarchical steps, the distinctions between categories are not always clear-cut. For example, all procedural knowledge is not necessarily more abstract than all conceptual knowledge; and an objective that involves analyzing or evaluating may require thinking skills that are no less complex than one that involves creating. It is generally understood, nonetheless, that lower order thinking skills are subsumed by, and provide the foundation for higher order thinking skills. The Knowledge Dimension classi ies four types of knowledge that learners may be expected to acquire or construct ranging from concrete to abstract (Table 1). Table 1. The Knowledge Dimension major types and subtypes concrete knowledge factual conceptual procedural metacognitive* abstract knowledge knowledge of terminology knowledge of specific details and elements knowledge of classifications and categories knowledge of principles and generalizations knowledge of subject-specific skills and algorithms knowledge of subject-specific techniques and methods strategic knowledge knowledge about cognitive tasks, including appropriate contextual and conditional knowledge knowledge of theories, models, and structures knowledge of criteria for determining when to use appropriate procedures self-knowledge (Table 1 adapted from Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001, p. 46.) *Metacognitive knowledge is a special case. In this model, metacognitive knowledge is knowledge of [one s own] cognition and about oneself in relation to various subject matters... (Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001, p. 44).

7 This taxonomy provides a framework for determining and clarifying learning objectives. Learning activities often involve both lower order and higher order thinking skills as well as a mix of concrete and abstract knowledge. The Cognitive Process Dimension represents a continuum of increasing cognitive complexity from lower order thinking skills to higher order thinking skills. Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) identify nineteen speci ic cognitive processes that further clarify the scope of the six categories (Table 2). Table 2. The Cognitive Processes dimension categories & cognitive processes and alternative names lower order thinking skills higher order thinking skills remember understand apply analyze evaluate create recognizing identifying recalling retrieving interpreting clarifying paraphrasing representing translating exemplifying illustrating instantiating classifying categorizing subsuming summarizing abstracting generalizing inferring concluding extrapolating interpolating predicting comparing contrasting mapping matching explaining constructing models executing carrying out implementing using differentiating discriminating distinguishing focusing selecting organizing finding coherence integrating outlining parsing structuring attributing deconstructing checking coordinating detecting monitoring testing critiquing judging generating hypothesizing planning designing producing constructing (Table 2 adapted from Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001, pp )

8 A statement of a learning objective contains a verb (an action) and an object (usually a noun). The verb generally refers to [actions associated with] the intended cognitive process. The object generally describes the knowledge students are expected to acquire or construct. (Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001, pp. 4 5) In this model, each of the colored blocks shows an example of a learning objective that generally corresponds with each of the various combinations of the cognitive process and knowledge dimensions. Reflect Use Predict Identify Integrate Clarify Recall Provide Classify how to perform CPR. Recognize Summarize List primary and secondary colors. Check for consistency among sources. Select to frequently asked questions. features of a new product. a log of daily activities. the most complete list of activities. Respond adhesives by toxicity. symptoms of exhaustion. Model created by: Rex Heer Iowa State University Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching Updated January, 2012 Licensed under a Creative Commons AttributionNonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. For additional resources, see: high and low culture. advice to novices. Generate relevance of results. Differentiate ph tests of water samples. a team of experts. Determine compliance with regulations. assembly instructions. Assemble efficiency of sampling techniques. Carry out one s response to culture shock. an efficient project workflow. Judge Deconstruct techniques that match one s strengths. strategies for retaining information. Design on one s progress. one s biases. Remember: these are learning objectives not learning activities. It may be useful to think of preceding each objective with something like: Students will be able to... *Anderson, L.W. (Ed.), Krathwohl, D.R. (Ed.), Airasian, P.W., Cruikshank, K.A., Mayer, R.E., Pintrich, P.R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M.C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Complete edition). New York: Longman. Create an innovative learning portfolio.

9 Foundation Skills/Developing an assessment/bloom's taxonomy Bloom's taxonomy In 1956, Benjamin Bloom developed a taxonomy of thinking skills (cognitive skills). His six categories, in order of increasing cognitive demand, were: Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis, Evaluation In 2001, Anderson and Krathwohl revised Bloom's Taxonomy - their six categories of cognitive skills, once again in order of increasing cognitive demand, are: Remembering, Understanding, Applying, Analyzing, Evaluating, Creating The first three categories are sometimes called the lower order thinking skills (LOTS), whilst the latter three categories are often referred to as the higher order thinking skills (HOTS). I've developed the following diagram to illustrate the hierarchy in the revised version of Bloom's Taxonomy, together with a sample of action verbs. Action verbs are the critical doing words used in questions. Quite often, the action verb indicates the complexity (level) of the question, e.g. when you ask a student to "justify a method of investing money", the cognitive demand is obviously greater than simply asking the student to "name one way of investing money".

10 When planning assessment tasks, first revisit the learning outcomes for your course. The action verb used in an assessment question must match the level intended in the learning outcome, e.g. if a learning outcome requires students to "list the tools used to install a wall-mounted flat-screen TV", then appropriate action verbs can include words such as list and name. You wouldn't ask students to "justify the use of tools...". Web Resources Bloom's Taxonomy can be applied to assessment questions and also to classroom teaching, e.g. careful selection of appropriate questions to challenge students' thinking. A very useful resource, Bloom's Taxonomy Revised : Key Words, Model Questions, & Instructional Strategies, gives examples of action verbs, model

11 questions and instructional strategies for each of the six categories or levels of the taxonomy. Examples of action verbs or clue words can be found on the University of New South Wales Learning Centre's website - see Exam Skills: Clue Words. Monash University provides two simple resources to support your understanding of Bloom's Taxonomy. The Identifying exam questions resource explains what examiners expect when using particular clue words, whilst the Identifying exam questions quiz allows you to classify a number of questions according to Bloom's Taxonomy using a drop-down menu. Try to quiz to see how well you understand Bloom's taxonomy. For Bloom's Taxonomy junkies, the Bloom's Digital Taxonomy page offers an abundance of ideas and resources.

12 The Second Principle The work of Leslie Owen Wilson, Ed. D. Creativity Homepage Instructional Design Optimal Learning Recommendations Teaching Essentials Anderson and Krathwohl Bloom s Taxonomy Revised URL: Understanding the New Version of Bloom s Taxonomy Leslie Owen Wilson (2016, 2013, 2005, 2001) Contact Leslie A succinct discussion of the revisions to Bloom s classic cognitive taxonomy by Anderson and Krathwohl and how to use them effectively Background: Who are Anderson and Krathwohl? These gentlemen are the primary authors of the revisions to what had become known as Bloom s Taxonomy an ordering of cognitive skills. (A taxonomy is really just a word for a form of classification.) This taxonomy had permeated teaching and instructional planning for almost 50 years before it was revised in And although these crucial revisions were published in 2001, surprisingly there are still educators who have never heard of Anderson and Krathwohl or their important work in relation to Bloom s Cognitive Taxonomy. Both of these primary authors were in a perfect position to orchestrate looking at the classic taxonomy critically. They called together a group of educational psychologists and educators to help them with the revisions. Lorin Anderson was once a student of the famed Benjamin Bloom, and David Krathwohl was one of Bloom s partners as he devised his classic cognitive taxonomy. Here in the United States, from the late 1950s into the early 1970s, there were attempts to dissect and classify the varied domains of human learning cognitive (knowing, or head), affective (emotions, feelings, or heart) and psychomotor (doing, or kinesthetic, tactile, haptic or hand/body). The resulting efforts yielded a series of taxonomies for each area. The aforementioned taxonomies deal with the varied aspects of human learning and were arranged hierarchically, proceeding from the simplest

13 functions to those that are more complex. Bloom s Cognitive Taxonomy had been a staple in teacher training and professional preparation for almost 40 years before Anderson and Krathwohl instituted an updated version. An overview of those changes appears below. While all of the taxonomies above have been defined and used for many years, there came about at the beginning of the 21st century in a new version of the cognitive taxonomy, known commonly before as Bloom s Taxonomy. You can also search the Web for varied references on the other two taxonomies affective or psychomotor. There are many valuable discussions on the development of all the of the hierarchies, as well as examples of their usefulness and applications in teaching. However, it is important to note that in a number of these discussions, some web authors have mislabeled the affective and psychomotor domains as extensions of Bloom s work. These authors are in grave error. The original cognitive domain was described and published in While David Krathwohl was one of the original authors on this taxonomy the work was named after the senior or first author Benjamin Bloom. The affective domain was not categorized until 1964 and as David Krathwohl was the lead author on this endeavor, it should bear his name, not Bloom s. Bloom had nothing to do with the psychomotor domain and it was not described or named until the first part of the 1970s. There are 3 versions of this taxonomy by 3 different authors Harrow (1972); Simpson (1972); and Dave (1970) See full citations below. The Cognitive Domain: The following chart includes the two primary existing taxonomies of cognition. Please note in the table below, the one on the left, entitled Bloom s, is based on the original work of Benjamin Bloom and others as they attempted in 1956 to define the functions of thought, coming to know, or cognition. This taxonomy is almost 60 years old. The taxonomy on the right is the more recent adaptation and is the redefined work of Bloom in That one is labeled Anderson and Krathwohl. The group redefining Bloom s original concepts, worked from As indicated above, this group was assembled by Lorin Anderson and David Krathwohl and included people with expertise in the areas of cognitive psychology, curriculum and instruction, and educational testing, measurement, and assessment. The new adaptation also took into consideration many of Bloom s own concerns and criticisms of his original taxonomy. As you will see the primary differences are not in the listings or rewordings from nouns to verbs, or in the renaming of some of the components, or even in the re-positioning of the last two categories. The major differences lie in the more useful and comprehensive additions of how the taxonomy intersects and acts upon different types and levels of knowledge factual, conceptual, procedural and metacognitive. This melding can be charted to see how one is teaching at both knowledge and cognitive process levels. Please remember the chart goes from simple to more complex and challenging types of thinking.

14 Taxonomies of the Cognitive Domain Bloom s Taxonomy 1956 Anderson and Krathwohl s Taxonomy Knowledge: Remembering or retrieving previously learned material. Examples of verbs that relate to this function are: know identify relate list define recall memorize repeat record name recognize acquire 1. Remembering: Recognizing or recalling knowledge from memory. Remembering is when memory is used to produce or retrieve definitions, facts, or lists, or to recite previously learned information. 2. Comprehension: The ability to grasp or construct meaning from material. Examples of verbs that relate to this function are: restate locate report recognize explain express identify discuss describe discuss review infer illustrate interpret draw represent differentiate conclude 2. Understanding: Constructing meaning from different types of functions be they written or graphic messages or activities like interpreting, exemplifying, classifying, summarizing, inferring, comparing, or explaining. 3. Application: The ability to use learned material, or to implement material in new and concrete situations. Examples of verbs that relate to this function are: apply relate develop translate use operate organize employ restructure interpret demonstrate illustrate practice calculate show exhibit dramatize 3. Applying: Carrying out or using a procedure through executing, or implementing. Applying relates to or refers to situations where learned material is used through products like models, presentations, interviews or simulations.

15 4. Analysis: The ability to break down or distinguish the parts of material into its components so that its organizational structure may be better understood. Examples of verbs that relate to this function are: analyze compare probe inquire examine contrast categorize differentiate contrast investigate detect survey classify deduce experiment scrutinize discover inspect dissect discriminate separate 4. Analyzing: Breaking materials or concepts into parts, determining how the parts relate to one another or how they interrelate, or how the parts relate to an overall structure or purpose. Mental actions included in this function are differentiating, organizing, and attributing, as well as being able to distinguish between the components or parts. When one is analyzing, he/she can illustrate this mental function by creating spreadsheets, surveys, charts, or diagrams, or graphic representations. 5. Synthesis: The ability to put parts together to form a coherent or unique new whole. Examples of verbs that relate to this function are: compose produce design assemble create prepare predict modify tell plan invent formulate collect set up generalize document combine relate propose develop arrange construct organize originate derive write propose 5. Evaluating: Making judgments based on criteria and standards through checking and critiquing. Critiques, recommendations, and reports are some of the products that can be created to demonstrate the processes of evaluation. In the newer taxonomy, evaluating comes before creating as it is often a necessary part of the precursory behavior before one creates something. 6. Evaluation: The ability to judge, check, and even critique the value of material for a given purpose. Examples of verbs that relate to this function are: judge assess compare evaluate conclude measure deduce argue decide choose rate select estimate validate consider appraise value criticize infer 6. Creating: Putting elements together to form a coherent or functional whole; reorganizing elements into a new pattern or structure through generating, planning, or producing. Creating requires users to put parts together in a new way, or synthesize parts into something new and different creating a new form or product. This process is the most difficult mental function in the new taxonomy. Table 1.1 Bloom vs. Anderson/Krathwohl

16 (Diagram 1.1, Wilson, Leslie O. 2001) Note: Bloom s taxonomy revised the author critically examines his own work After creating the cognitive taxonomy one of the weaknesses noted by Bloom himself was that there is was a fundamental difference between his knowledge category and the other 5 levels of his model as those levels dealt with intellectual abilities and skills in relation to interactions with types of knowledge. Bloom was very aware that there was an acute difference between knowledge and the mental and intellectual operations performed on, or with, that knowledge. He identified specific types of knowledge as: Terminology Specific facts Conventions Trends and sequences Classifications and categories Criteria Methodology Principles and generalizations Theories and structures Levels of Knowledge The first three of these levels were identified in the original work, but rarely discussed or introduced when initially discussing uses for the taxonomy. Metacognition was added in the revised version.

17 Factual Knowledge The basic elements students must know to be acquainted with a discipline or solve problems. Conceptual Knowledge The interrelationships among the basic elements within a larger structure that enable them to function together. Procedural Knowledge How to do something, methods of inquiry, and criteria for using skills, algorithms, techniques, and methods. Metacognitive Knowledge Knowledge of cognition in general, as well as awareness and knowledge of one s own cognition. (29) (Summarized from: Anderson, L. W. & Krathwohl, D.R., et al (2001) A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.) What is different?- One of the things that clearly differentiates the new model from that of the 1956 original is that it lays out components nicely so they can be considered and used. Cognitive processes, as related to chosen instructional tasks, can be easily documented and tracked. This feature has the potential to make teacher assessment, teacher self-assessment, and student assessment easier or clearer as usage patterns emerge. (See PDF link below for a sample.) As stated before, perhaps surprisingly, these levels of knowledge were indicated in Bloom s original work factual, conceptual, and procedural but these were never fully understood or used by teachers because most of what educators were given in training consisted of a simple chart with the listing of levels and related accompanying verbs. The full breadth of Handbook I, and its recommendations on types of knowledge, were rarely discussed in any instructive or useful way. Another rather gross lapse in common teacher training over the past 50+ years is teachers-in-training are rarely made aware of any of the criticisms leveled against Bloom s original model. Please note that in the updated version the term metacognitive has been added to the array of knowledge types. For readers not familiar with this term, it means thinking about ones thinking in a purposeful way so that one knows about cognition and also knows how to regulate one s cognition. Table: 1.2 colorized version from original by Anderson, L. W. and Krathwohl, D. R., et al (Eds..) (2001)

18 Knowledge Dimensions Defined: Factual Knowledge is knowledge that is basic to specific disciplines. This dimension refers to essential facts, terminology, details or elements students must know or be familiar with in order to understand a discipline or solve a problem in it. Conceptual Knowledge is knowledge of classifications, principles, generalizations, theories, models, or structures pertinent to a particular disciplinary area. Procedural Knowledge refers to information or knowledge that helps students to do something specific to a discipline, subject, or area of study. It also refers to methods of inquiry, very specific or finite skills, algorithms, techniques, and particular methodologies. Metacognitive Knowledge is the awareness of one s own cognition and particular cognitive processes. It is strategic or reflective knowledge about how to go about solving problems, cognitive tasks, to include contextual and conditional knowledge and knowledge of self. Sources: Anderson, L. W. and Krathwohl, D. R., et al (Eds..) (2001) A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Allyn & Bacon. Boston, MA (Pearson Education Group) **There is a newer (2013), abridged, less expensive version of this work. Bloom, B.S. and Krathwohl, D. R. (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals, by a committee of college and university examiners. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. NY, NY: Longmans, Green Krathwohl, D. R. (2002) A Revision of Bloom s Taxonomy. (PDF) in Theory into Practice. V 41. #4. Autumn, Ohio State University. Wilson s PDF anderson-and-krathwohl-revised Wilson s PDF Example of using revised taxonomy The Anderson/Krathwohl text has numerous examples of how these concepts can be used for K-12 teachers. Since I have used this material in my teaching (a special topics graduate course on taxonomies and their uses entitled Beyond Bloom s,) and have also presented on this topic in several national conferences, I have artifacts and examples of how these revisions can be used effectively in college teaching. While I have a link above to an artifact, to be fully understood you might need to view the original assignment and the supportive documents. I would be happy to provide those and discuss them more fully. I am always happy to share information with other educators. Originally published in my ED 721 (2001) course handbook, and at: (2001, 2005), revised 2013 Contact Leslie

19 You may also be interested in a discussion of all three domains of learning cognitive, affective, and psychomotor *New Pages The Importance of Exceptional Teachers They are keepers of the future The Flipped Classroom Making Instructional Decisions A guide for both novice and veteran teachers and A dozen important brain based learning concepts Things every teacher (and parent) should know Giving = Continued Sharing I created the Second Principle to share information about the educational ideas at the heart of all good teaching. I am dedicated to the ideal that most of materials on this site remain free to individuals, and free of advertising. If you have found value in the information offered here, please consider becoming a patron through a PayPal donation to help defray hosting and operating costs. Thanks for your consideration, and blessings on your own journey.