The New Taxonomies: Moving From the Knowledge Age to the Conceptual Age

1
The New Taxonomies Moving From the Knowledge
Age to the Conceptual Age

• Valorie Hargett, Section Chief
• Social Studies/English Language Arts
• Secondary Division
• North Carolina Department of Public Instruction

2
IF

• Intelligence is teachable, learnable, multiple
  types

• Intelligence is impacted by experience,
  instruction and/or by nature

• Intelligenceis flexible and subject to change,
  both up and down

• Intelligence has the capacity to continue growing
  throughout ones life

• Intelligence (cognitive functioning) is enhanced
  and/or impacted by certain interventions

THEN
What are our universal frameworks, models or
theories in which we communicate with one another
to grow or increase our cognitive capacity?
3
Introducing the 1950s

• Benjamin Bloom -

• Used for the past fifty years as a codification
  system whereby educators could design learning
  objectives that have a hierarchical organization

• Remains a standard reference for discussions of
  testing and evaluation, curriculum development
  and teaching and teacher education.

• Became a powerful tool for objectives-based
  evaluation that had not been achieved before

4

• Model of Evaluation

• 1965 - Elementary and Secondary Education Act
  (ESEA)

• 1970 - Statewide testing

• 1980 - Higher levels of thinking

• 1983 - A Nation at Risk

• 1984 - ASCD, Racine, Wisconsin

• 1985 - 32 States testing

• 1990 - Additional states enter

• 2001 - NCLB

5
The Original Blooms Taxonomy

• Framework for communication between individuals

• Tool for designing test items especially
  multiple choice

6
The Original Blooms Taxonomy

• Evaluation

• Synthesis

• Analyzes

• Application

• Comprehension

• Knowledge

7
The Original Blooms Taxonomy

• Evaluation

• All NOUNS for processes

• One dimensional

• Synthesis

• Hierarchical

• Degrees of difficulty as the basis for the
  difference between levels of the taxonomy

• Analyzes

• Application

• Multiple types of Knowledge

• Very cognitively ambiguous verbs

• Comprehension

• Failure for trained educators to recognize
  questions at higher levels as more difficult than
  at lower levels

• Knowledge

8
Evaluation
Synthesis
Analysis
Application
Comprehension
Knowledge
The Original Blooms Taxonomy
9
Why the Revised Taxonomy?

• Historical link (1949 to the present)

• Two dimensions match the structure of all
  objectives subject-verb-object.

• Verbs are critical since they represent the
  cognitive processes objects, in noun form,
  represent the subject-matter content.

• Complete crossing of rows with columns (i.e.,
  students can remember factual, conceptual,
  procedural, and metacognitive knowledge).

10
THE TAXONOMY TABLE
6. CREATE
3. APPLY
4. ANALYZE
5. EVALUATE
1. REMEMBER
2. UNDERSTAND
A. Factual Knowledge
B. Conceptual Knowledge
C. Procedural Knowledge
D. Metacognitive Knowledge
11
(No Transcript)
12
Major Characteristics of Blooms

• Framework
• Two Dimensions
• Cognitive processes
• Knowledge Dimensions
• Cognitive Processes renamed and reorganized
• Least cognitively ambiguous verbs
• Knowledge Subcategories renamed and reorganized
• Strong verb-noun relationship

13
Major Characteristics of Blooms

• Analysis and alignment for learning, teaching and
  assessment (format/structure)
• Tool for unpacking standards
• Tool for extending standards
• Tool for defensible differentiated instruction
• Not a cumulative hierarchy
• Subcategories overlap
• Omission of problem solving and critical thinking

14
THE TAXONOMY TABLE
6. CREATE
3. APPLY
4. ANALYZE
5. EVALUATE
1. REMEMBER
2. UNDERSTAND
MEMORY
UNDERSTAND
A. Factual Knowledge
B. Conceptual Knowledge
C. Procedural Knowledge
PROCEDURAL
D. Metacognitive Knowledge
OPINION
15
Designing a New Taxonomy of Educational Objectives

• A place holder for my thinking.
• Robert Marzano

16
(No Transcript)
17
(No Transcript)
18
Marzanos Taxonomy

• Levels of Processing

• Knowledge Domains

1. Retrieval

• Comprehension

1. Information

• Mental Procedures

• Analysis

• Psychomotor Procedures

• Knowledge Utilization

• Metacognitive System

• Self-System

19
(No Transcript)
20
(No Transcript)
21
(No Transcript)
22
(No Transcript)
23
(No Transcript)
24
Characteristics of Marzanos Taxonomy

• A model or theory of human thought (allow for
  prediction of phenomenon)
• Flow of info ALWAYS (?) (self to metacognitive to
  cognitive and then knowledge)
• Two dimensions (Three Systems and Knowledge)
• Self-System -interrelated beliefs and goals
• Metacognitive - Goals/learning targets for new
  tasks

25
Characteristics of Marzanos Taxonomy

• A model or theory of human thought (allow for
  prediction of phenomenon)
• Flow of info ALWAYS (?) (self to metacognitive to
  cognitive and then knowledge)
• Two dimensions (Three Systems and Knowledge)
• Self-System -interrelated beliefs and goals
• Metacognitive - Goals/learning targets for new
  tasks

26
THE TAXONOMY TABLE
6. CREATE
3. APPLY
4. ANALYZE
5. EVALUATE
1. REMEMBER
2. UNDERSTAND
Knowledge Utilization
Retrieval
Comprehension
Analysis
A. Factual Knowledge
Information
B. Conceptual Knowledge
Information
C. Procedural Knowledge
Mental/Physical Procedures
D. Metacognitive Knowledge
Metacognition Self
27
Some Conclusions

• To solve shared problems, we need shared lenses.
• Shared lenses provide a common way of thinking
  about problems and a common language to talk
  about them.
• Any shared lens (framework) is better than no
  lens at all. Without a shared lens, we are all
  in this alone.