With the advent of the twenty first century, Bloom’s Taxonomy was revised and all the descriptors were changed to verbs. One revised view looks like this
How does this model serve the needs of our students and their lives?
Some might argue that the model is still too “bottom-heavy” as it appears to remain focused on “remembering” – a very low skill level. Probably not quite as transformative and maybe also why packets still remain in classrooms as there is that “base knowledge” that students need to know . . . before they can move on to a higher order thinking skill.
So should we JUST flip it over and indulge in more creating (note = NOT crafting) and less emphasis on “rote memory”?
So visually, the colors and words did NOT match so I struggled with thinking and re-thinking about what a re-conceptualism would look like. “But my goal of drawing” this electronically was proving to be a challenge. So as a veteran color coder, I quickly fixed the word order and colors so I could literally compare apples to apples and the same levels across the board. Creating was back at the top as you can see in the next iteration!
Some might argue that “Remembering” truly does need a bigger section and that would also help this triangle better “stand on its own base without danger of tipping over. I can go with that. Some might argue that this might serve to show the cumulative outcomes of an entire educational history.
But what if . . . since we know that we are boring many students, still providing students with few choices, and not giving them a voice to co-construct evidence of learning, we shifted this view again?
My goal – reenvision how much time is spent on each of the six levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy. What would the graphic look like if it more accurately portrayed the time that students need to be doing the thinking, reading, and writing work during the school day?
How do we shift to what STUDENTS need?
What if the shape was more of an hourglass?