Strategies
Bloom's Taxonomy at the Junior Level
The third Standard of Practice refers to members refining their practice through ongoing inquiry and reflection. In the reflection that follows, I try to combine Bloom's Taxonomy, Marzano's questioning levels, and an idea I read in an article about flipping Bloom's Taxonomy to create a questioning strategy that might help students to access higher levels of thinking in order to try to innovate in my practice.
Bloom’s taxonomy is a wonderful framework that educators can use when planning instruction to ensure that students access multiple levels of thought each day. One of the easiest ways to access these thought processes is by being very intentional in the questions that we ask in class each day.
The achievement chart criteria for ‘thinking’ list several descriptors, such as planning, analyzing, and synthesizing, which relate most to the top three ideas on the taxonomy; creating, evaluating, and analyzing (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2010, pp.23-25; Krathwohl, 2002).
Marzano outlines four levels of questions; details, characteristics, elaborations, and evidence, and suggests that educators proceed from the simplest (details) to the deeper levels (elaborations, evidence). This approach mostly follows the standard practice of beginning with superficial questions and rote memorization from the bottom of the taxonomy and culminating with deep questions involving higher-level thinking skills.
Recently, I came upon an article online entitled “Flipping Bloom’s Taxonomy” by Shelly Wright (2012) in which the author advocates for approaching lesson planning beginning with creation and evaluation and moving down the taxonomy as opposed to the opposite, more common approach of working upwards from the lower-order thinking skills at the bottom. Her argument is that often teachers spend so much time trying to get students to memorize material that they never get the opportunity to engage in higher-level thinking and creation.
As such, I would propose that when structuring the questioning in class we should begin with Marzano’s ‘elaborations’ as essential questions to drive discovery of ‘characteristics’ and pertinent ‘details’ from resources which students can then cite as ‘evidence’. In this way, students will immediately engage in deeper levels of inquiry and questioning and have a more authentic reason to seek answers from classroom resources. Approaching Bloom’s taxonomy backwards lends itself to an inquiry-based approach to learning that allows students to engage the criteria in the achievement charts for thinking early on in the lesson rather than at the end.
The achievement chart criteria for ‘thinking’ list several descriptors, such as planning, analyzing, and synthesizing, which relate most to the top three ideas on the taxonomy; creating, evaluating, and analyzing (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2010, pp.23-25; Krathwohl, 2002).
Marzano outlines four levels of questions; details, characteristics, elaborations, and evidence, and suggests that educators proceed from the simplest (details) to the deeper levels (elaborations, evidence). This approach mostly follows the standard practice of beginning with superficial questions and rote memorization from the bottom of the taxonomy and culminating with deep questions involving higher-level thinking skills.
Recently, I came upon an article online entitled “Flipping Bloom’s Taxonomy” by Shelly Wright (2012) in which the author advocates for approaching lesson planning beginning with creation and evaluation and moving down the taxonomy as opposed to the opposite, more common approach of working upwards from the lower-order thinking skills at the bottom. Her argument is that often teachers spend so much time trying to get students to memorize material that they never get the opportunity to engage in higher-level thinking and creation.
As such, I would propose that when structuring the questioning in class we should begin with Marzano’s ‘elaborations’ as essential questions to drive discovery of ‘characteristics’ and pertinent ‘details’ from resources which students can then cite as ‘evidence’. In this way, students will immediately engage in deeper levels of inquiry and questioning and have a more authentic reason to seek answers from classroom resources. Approaching Bloom’s taxonomy backwards lends itself to an inquiry-based approach to learning that allows students to engage the criteria in the achievement charts for thinking early on in the lesson rather than at the end.
References:
Krathwohl, D.R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212-218. Retrieved from: http://www.depauw.edu/files/resources/krathwohl.pdf
Ontario Ministry of Education (2010). Growing Success: Assessment, Evaluation and Reporting in Ontario Schools, First Edition, covering Grades 1 to 12. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.
Marzano, R.J. (2013). The Art and Science of Teaching: Asking Questions – at four different levels. Educational Leadership, 70(5), 76-77.
Wright, S. (2012, May 15). Flipping Bloom’s Taxonomy. [web log post]. Retrieved from: http://plpnetwork.com/2012/05/15/flipping-blooms-taxonomy/
Krathwohl, D.R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212-218. Retrieved from: http://www.depauw.edu/files/resources/krathwohl.pdf
Ontario Ministry of Education (2010). Growing Success: Assessment, Evaluation and Reporting in Ontario Schools, First Edition, covering Grades 1 to 12. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.
Marzano, R.J. (2013). The Art and Science of Teaching: Asking Questions – at four different levels. Educational Leadership, 70(5), 76-77.
Wright, S. (2012, May 15). Flipping Bloom’s Taxonomy. [web log post]. Retrieved from: http://plpnetwork.com/2012/05/15/flipping-blooms-taxonomy/