During my first education courses, I remember memorizing the original levels of Bloom’s taxonomy. I struggled to find a way to help me memorize the levels of Bloom’s while staring at the pyramid structure. Now, as I reflect on the Digital Bloom’s, I wonder about its usefulness. Does it have too much information? Does not include enough information?
Benjamin Bloom’s taxonomy is based on six levels of the cognitive domain arranged from lower to higher order thinking skills. I found a video on YouTube that used The Pirate’s of the Caribbean movie to demonstrate each level of the original Bloom’s taxonomy. If I had this video during my early courses, I might have spent less time staring at the pyramid trying to memorize.
Lorin Anderson and David Krathwohl revised Bloom’s taxonomy by re-sequencing the levels with verbs instead of nouns. In the image above, you can see evaluating is no longer at the top of the pyramid in the new version. One of the elements of Bloom’s taxonomy which did not change with the new version is the key terms for each level (Bloom’s Taxonomy “Revised” , 2002).
Digital Bloom’s taxonomy was developed by Andrew Churches with the primary focus on the competence and the products from the technological tool usage (Churches, 2008). It has deviated from the past by redefining key terms. Educational-origami provides a visual example of Digital Bloom’s taxonomy with key terms.
After reviewing the key terms, I began to consider the technology tools used within the levels. When considering the growing popularity of tweeting or microbloging, should twitter be within the understanding level or should it be divided like blogging has been within separate levels. Holotescu and Grosseck (2008) discuss how to define twitter or microblogging and use it in the classroom by breaking it down into separate levels using Digital Bloom’s.
How would you define technology tools for the classroom using Digital Bloom’s? As an example, watch the YouTube video demonstrating Digital Bloom’s, where would you organize it in the Digital Bloom’s taxonomy? I consider it creating because the learner has elements of planning, designing, constructing, and programming.
I do not completely disagree with Digital Bloom’s. I understand it is a work in progress because it is based on technology. With technology always changing, it needs to be understood Digital Bloom’s will not remain the same.
If you would like to learn more about Digital Bloom’s, Michael Fisher provides a pyramid of tools on his post with link to his Delicious or Diigo tags. Also, Phillipa Cleaves has a presentation of Web 2.0 tools based on Digital Bloom’s.
Bloom’s Taxonomy “Revised” . (2002, December). Retrieved March 14, 2011, from IUPUI Center for Teaching & Learning: http://www.uni.edu/stdteach/TWS/BloomRevisedTaxonomy_KeyWords-1-1.pdf
Churches, A. (2008, April). Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy. Retrieved March 1, 2011, from http://www.techlearning.com/techlearning/archives/2008/04/AndrewChurches.pdf
Grosseck, G., & Holotescu, C. (2008). Can we use Twitter for educational purposes? The 4th International Scientific Conference eLearning Software for Education, (pp. 1-11). Bucharest.
Guhlin, M., Nussbaum-Beach, S., Knightbridge, A., Cattell, S., Casey, R., McLeod, M., et al. (2011). Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy. Retrieved March 12 2011, from Education Orogonmi: http://edorigami.wikispaces.com/Bloom%27s+Digital+Taxonomy
Jamae Allred is a doctoral student at the University of Memphis. While attending courses, she is a graduate assistant for the early childhood department who teaches an undergraduate course. She is also employed part-time by International Paper as a content developer for the Environmental, Health, Safety, and Sustainability Group. She plans to continue working in the corporate environment before teaching at the university level.