3. All the verbs listed under each level of the Taxonomy are more or less equal; they are synonyms for the level.<\/strong><\/p>\nNo, there are distinct sub-levels of the Taxonomy, in which the cognitive difficulty of each sub-level increases.<\/p>\n
For example, under Knowledge, the lowest-level form is Knowledge of Terminology, where a more demanding form of recall is Knowledge of the Major Ideas, Schemes and Patterns in a field of study, and where the highest level of Knowledge is Knowledge of Theories and Structures (for example, knowing the structure and organization of Congress.)<\/p>\n
Under Comprehension, the three sub-levels in order of difficulty are Translation, Interpretation, and Extrapolation. Main Idea in literacy, for example, falls under Interpretation since it demands more than \u201ctranslating\u201d the text into one\u2019s own words, as noted above.<\/p>\n
4. The Taxonomy recommends against the goal of \u201cunderstanding\u201d in education.<\/strong><\/p>\nOnly in the sense of the term \u201cunderstand\u201d being too broad. Rather, the Taxonomy helps us to more clearly delineate the different levels of understanding we seek:<\/p>\n
To return to the illustration of the term \u201cunderstanding\u201d a teacher might use the Taxonomy to decide which of several meanings he intended. If it meant that the student was\u2026aware of a situation\u2026to describe it in terms slightly different from those originally used in describing it, this would correspond to the taxonomy category of \u201ctranslation\u201d [which is a sub-level under Comprehension]. Deeper understanding would be reflected in the next-higher level of the Taxonomy, \u201cinterpretation,\u201d where the student would be expected to summarize and explain\u2026 And there are other levels of the Taxonomy which the teacher could use to indicate still deeper \u201cunderstanding.\u201d<\/p>\n
5. The writers of the Taxonomy were confident that the Taxonomy was a valid and complete Taxonomy<\/strong><\/p>\nNo they weren\u2019t. They note that:<\/p>\n
\u201cOur attempt to arrange educational behaviors from simple to complex was based on the idea that a particular simple behavior may become integrated with other equally simple behaviors to form a more complex behavior\u2026 Our evidence on this is not entirely satisfactory, but there is an unmistakable trend pointing toward a hierarchy of behaviors.<\/p>\n
They were concerned especially that no single theory of learning and achievement\u2013<\/p>\n
\u201caccounted for the varieties of behaviors represented in the educational objectives we attempted to classify. We were reluctantly forced to agree with Hilgard that each theory of learning accounts for some phenomena very well but is less adequate in accounting for others. What is needed is a larger synthetic theory of learning than at present seems available.<\/p>\n
Later schemas \u2013 such as Webb\u2019s Depth of Knowledge and the revised Taxonomy \u2013 do nothing to solve this basic problem, with implications for all modern Standards documents.<\/p>\n
Why This All Matters<\/strong><\/p>\nThe greatest failure of the Common Core Standards is arguably to have overlooked these issues by being arbitrary\/careless in the use of verbs in the Standards.<\/p>\n
There appears to have been no attempt to be precise and consistent in the use of the verbs in the Standards, thus making it almost impossible for users to understand the level of rigor prescribed by the standard, hence levels of rigor required in local assessments. (Nothing is said in any documents about how deliberate those verb choices were, but I know from prior experience in New Jersey and Delaware that verbs are used haphazardly \u2013 in fact, writing teams start to vary the verbs\u00a0just to avoid repetition!)<\/p>\n
The problem is already on view: in many schools, the assessments are less rigorous than the Standards and practice tests clearly demand. No wonder the scores are low.\u00a0I\u2019ll have more to say on this problem in a later post, but my prior posts on Standards<\/a> provide further background on the problem we face.<\/p>\nUpdate:<\/em> Already people are arguing with me on Twitter as if I agree with everything said here. I nowhere\u00a0say here that Bloom was right about the Taxonomy. (His doubts about his own work suggest my real views, don\u2019t they?) I am merely reporting what he said and what is commonly misunderstood.\u00a0In fact, I am re-reading Bloom as part of a critique of the Taxonomy in support of the revised 3rd edition of UbD in which we call for a more sophisticated view of the idea of depth and rigor in learning and assessment than currently exists.<\/p>\nThis article first appeared on\u00a0Grant\u2019s personal blog<\/a>;\u00a0Grant can be found\u00a0on twitter here<\/a>;\u00a05 Common Misconceptions About Bloom\u2019s Taxonomy; image attribution flickr user langwitches<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n