«During the 1990's, a former student of Bloom's, Lorin Anderson, led a new assembly which met for the purpose of updating the taxonomy, hoping to add relevance for 21st century students and teachers. This time "representatives of three groups [were present]: cognitive psychologists, curriculum theorists and instructional researchers, and testing and assessment specialists" (Anderson, & Krathwohl, 2001, p. xxviii). Like the original group, they were also arduous and diligent in their pursuit of learning, spending six years to finalize their work. Published in 2001, the revision includes several seemingly minor yet actually quite significant changes. Several excellent sources are available which detail the revisions and reasons for the changes. A more concise summary appears here. The changes occur in three broad categories: terminology, structure, and emphasis.
Changes in terminology between the two versions are perhaps the most obvious differences and can also cause the most confusion. Basically, Bloom's six major categories were changed from noun to verb forms. Additionally, the lowest level of the original, knowledge was renamed and became remembering. Finally, comprehension and synthesis were retitled to understanding and creating. In an effort to minimize the confusion, comparison images appear below.
The new terms are defined as:
Remembering: Retrieving, recognizing, and recalling relevant knowledge from long-term memory.
Understanding: Constructing meaning from oral, written, and graphic messages through interpreting, exemplifying, classifying, summarizing, inferring, comparing, and explaining.
Applying: Carrying out or using a procedure through executing, or implementing.
Analyzing: Breaking material into constituent parts, determining how the parts relate to one another and to an overall structure or purpose through differentiating, organizing, and attributing.
Evaluating: Making judgments based on criteria and standards through checking and critiquing.
Creating: Putting elements together to form a coherent or functional whole; reorganizing elements into a new pattern or structure through generating, planning, or producing.
(Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001, pp. 67-68)
The proposed path is:
watch the video on Features Cards to help design the framework of course/module
Comment: I didn't find it particularly useful for my project (OER module for teacher training), since I already have a defined context
use of a template for course/module map
Comment: I've decided to try different visualizations: Course Map - UML diagram - Pinboard Glogster
select one or two of 19 case studies that used this tool
I've chosen the following case studies:
Patrick McAndrew narrative on the adaptation of a course that already existed «Introductory module to Maths using OER» for a new context in USA, replanning required using Course Map tool.
Comment - I also found the Course Map an easy and simple tool to have a glance at the tools, resources, activities and relationships between learners and facilitators. Specially to be used in a context of meeting and discussion between partners that wish to run a common course. This tool and other ones that we have approached in Week 2 can be helpful to have a visualization of the planning.
Grainne Conole Slideshare on the 7 C's of Learning Design: (i)Coceptualize; (ii) Capture; (iii) Communicate; (iv) Collaborate; (v) Consider; (vi) Combine; (vii)
This is your Sidebar, which you can edit like any other page in your workspace.
This Sidebar appears everywhere on your workspace. Add to it whatever you like -- a navigation section, a link to your favorite web sites, or anything else.
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.