Beyond Bloom’s Taxonomy: Rethinking Knowledge for the Knowledge Age

Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (2005). Beyond Bloom’s Taxonomy: Rethinking Knowledge for the Knowledge Age. In M. Fullan (Ed.) International Handbook of Educational Change: Fundamental Change. The Netherlands: Springer. pp. 5-22

p.6 -  Key questions:
(1) What does it mean to have a deep knowledge of something?
(2) In what way is a knowledge worker different from any other kind of white-collar worker?

p.11: "The psychology that informed Bloom's taxonomy was a blend of behaviorism, which was the dominant scientific psychology of the day, and a common sense view, which has come to be called 'folk psychology"
From behaviorism came the choice to define educational objectives in behavioral terms and to base the the hierarchy of levels "on the idea that a particular simple behavior may become integrated with other equally simple behaviors to form a more complex behavior" (Bloom, 1956, p. 18)

p.12: Critiques of Bloom’s Taxonomy
1) it defines a hierarchy of general intellectual (domain independent) skills. Problem: students could have signifcant skill in "recognizing unstated assumptions" but fail a test item because they don't have much knowledge of physics
2) the view of knowledge implicit in Bloom’s Taxonomy is not very helpful anymore
3) Bloom’s Taxonomy encourages schools to emphasize the acquisition of low-level factual knowledge because it is the only level that is well defined
4) it is futile to try to define levels of understanding across domains, or even within a domain.
     example: suppose we worked out six levels of understanding of Huckleberry Finn and six levels of understanding of the principle of natural selection. What correspondence could we expect to find between these two hierarchies?
5) it fails to define clearly what "deep understanding" is

p.13 Bereiter and Scardamalia (2005) make the following proposition:
The educated mind has various abilities and dispositions.
Paramount among these are the ability and the disposition to create and work with abstract knowledge objects.

p.14 Definition: "Having a deep understanding of something means understanding deep things about it."

p.17 Provisional scheme of levels for working with knowledge
1. Knowledge as individuated mental states
2. Knowledge as itemizable mental content
3. Knowledge as representation
4. Knowledge as viewable from different perspectives
5. Knowledge as personal artifacts
6. Knowledge as improvable personal artifacts
7. Knowledge as semi-autonomous artifacts

Cognition and learning

Greeno, J. G., Collins, A. M. & Resnick, L. B (1996). Cognition and learning. In D.C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15-46). New York: MacMillan.

This chapter by Greeno et al. gives a good overview of behaviorist, cognitive, socio-cultural perspectives on knowing, learning and transfer, and the nature of motivation and engagement.

It compares and contrasts the views and assertions of three main theoretical frameworks (behaviorist, cognitive, socio-cultural) on key thematic issues and questions about cognition and learning.

The chapter also discusses how these three theoretical perspectives play out in

• the design of learning environments
• formulating curricula
• constructing assessments

What is the relationship between these three perspectives? One possibility is that each theory accounts for different types of learning and knowing. Another is that these theories are not mutually exclusive. Sometimes they can support and interact with one another.

It is the view Greeno et al. that the role of theories of cognition and learning is not to prescribe a set of practices that should be followed, but rather to assist in clarifying alternative practices.

In the conclusion, they say, "Reforming practices requires the transformation of people's understanding of principles that are assumed - perhaps implicitly - in the practices, and that theoretically oriented research can assist in identifying these principles and suggest ways of accomplishing the transformations."

This reading led me to reflect about my own experience of learning how to play tennis. Initially, it was a lot of trial and error until I figured out how to hit the ball, serve, hot backhands, lob volley, etc. This seemed like behaviorist learning. When I started taking classes and getting private lessons, my tennis improved dramatically. In addition to playing more, it was helpful to be aware of some of the theories and concepts around things like top spring, transfer of momentum, strategy, etc. This more cognitive approach helped my game tremendously. But it still took a lot of drill and practice, development of "muscle memory." My tennis game also improved as I played with different people and joined a local tennis club. The socio-cultural aspect of tennis also supported my learning, and provided motivation to improve.

To me, the question is not which theory of cognition and learning is "correct" or "most true" but rather when do they apply and how. In addition, these theories may have great explanatory value - i.e., help us understand why educational practice worked (or did not work) with a particular set of learners in a certain context.