To Bloom or not to Bloom that is the question!

Appendix 1

I just wanted to discuss the Blooms revision taxonomy as above in Appendix 1. Now my theory is that to take an Evaluation statement as in the highest order of Blooms and replace it with Creating is a reduction of the process of higher level thinking. I would accept that an analysis and therefore an evaluation as a part of that analysis process is producing what Blooms called a higher order thinking activity. And I agree if we take and explanation of something put alongside an analysis then we are developing reflective and research based skills with the latter. However an explanation remains descriptive in some respects even though it could be anecdotal and in detail. So I would say that based upon those methods an analysis and an evaluation are higher level thinking skills. To create something is not, it is a part of the creative process. Yes we have to possibly research in part, develop our thinking in part but a creative process doesn’t necessarily have to be involved, it could be quite the opposite it could have no research of anything other than its creative output depending of course on what you are creating. So I am not sure how creating, creative and creation have featured in the revised taxonomy as the highest level skill only that this section represents our times. But to add a level that is not a higher level thinking skill above one that is just reduces us to working differently and not necessarily with any higher level thinking processes occurring?

Whereas as a part of an analysis we can produce qualitative and quantitative research and then evaluate them and even use the synthesis level to determine our process the revised pyramid loses this important part as well. Traditionally in educational activities at higher levels and with higher order thinking we have always used Analysis, Synthesis and Evaluation to produce our results for all to see. But with the revised pyramid of Blooms we are seeing the Analyzing, Evaluating and Creating Model being preferred? What does this mean for today’s educationalists do we only analyze and evaluate? And then what exactly do we do to inform all concerned of our results from Analyzing and Evaluating? Create something?

I also find the lower levels of the revised taxonomy a little odd as a reflective practitioner I work from knowledge that I source and further to studying that knowledge I disseminate my findings via application and analysis to all concerned. I don’t necessarily need to remember anything as the knowledge that I use and gather for my research informs the analysis. Also with the plethora of knowledge these days remembering is something we do not do as much as we just cannot keep up with the amount of knowledge that keeps appearing via the internet or that is available to us? Frankly it is impossible to retain and remember all the information we need to use in our higher level analysis on any subject. To me knowledge is the foundation stone and something we build on remembering isn’t. We comprehend and apply so I can accept the application and applying stage of the old Blooms taxonomy but my perception of the changes within the new Blooms revision seems to me to dumb down the original to an extent that it starts to reflect our society of today. And that is one that is more concerned with creating aspects of things than actually analysing aspects of things. To me this reduces our higher level thinking to a creative process that in some respects cannot be quantified perhaps due to the nature of that creating. I guess it does help new generations of students though who can have objectives set such as go and create a 20 second meme for Tik Tok and then we can evaluate the results. And we are then hitting those higher level thinking targets once again.??

?