Bloom’s Digital


Published on

A slideshow I made containing an overview of Bloom's Digital Taxonomy and comparing it to Bloom's (original) Taxonomy.

Published in: Education
1 Comment
No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Bloom’s Digital

  1. 1. Table of Contents  Overview  Foundation  The Taxonomy Broken Down  The Digital Taxonomy Explained  Differences from Bloom’s Taxonomy  Similarities with Bloom’s Taxonomy  Conclusion  Works Cited
  2. 2. Overview  A refresher of Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy (1956)  Examining the six levels of Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy as defined by Andrew Churches (2001)
  3. 3. Foundation  Original Taxonomy was created by Benjamin S. Bloom in 1956  Revised in 2001 by Anderson and Krathwohl  The largest difference was replacing the nouns of the original taxonomy with verbs and a change in their order  Identified and outlined the cognitive domain which involves the development of intellectual skills  Each level builds on the previous level  An educator begins with Lower Order Thinking Skills (LOTS) and works up toward Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS)  Typically viewed as a pyramid with LOTS on the bottom and HOTS toward the top
  4. 4. Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy
  5. 5. The Taxonomy Broken Down  Remembering– memorization and the ability to recall information  Understanding – the ability to understand the meaning behind instructions  Applying – applying what was learned to a real world task  Analyzing– separating information into parts and making distinctions between hearsay and fact  Evaluating – bringing the parts together to form a whole with new meaning  Creating – making decisions based on the merits of an idea
  6. 6. Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy
  7. 7. The Digital Taxonomy Explained  Remembering – modern examples include the use of social bookmarking websites, use of search engines and social networking  Understanding – blog journaling, commenting on websites and categorizing items using folders  Applying – playing educational games, editing a wiki and sharing photos or documents online  Analyzing – creating “mashups” and leveraging Google Docs  Evaluating – moderating a forum, structured and reasoned blog responses and software beta-testing  Creating – directing or filming a video or podcast, programming software
  8. 8. Differences from Bloom’s Taxonomy  While the ideas still reverberate with today’s learners, they must be applied in a different manner to better engage these students  Using the Digital Taxonomy, educators will be able to teach HOTS to these younger students  Educators do not necessarily need to begin their lessons at the bottom of the pyramid  Strong emphasis on collaboration between learners  Larger integration of multimedia into lesson plans
  9. 9. Similarities with Bloom’s Taxonomy  Both taxonomies maintain the same verbage and basic principles  Maintain pyramid structure with lower order thinking skills at the bottom and gradual increase to higher order thinking skills
  10. 10. Conclusion  Churches’ update to Bloom’s Taxonomy allows educators to bring it into the modern classroom and apply it to the current, quickly changing technological environment  Bloom’s Taxonomy has been tweaked for well over 50 years and the Digital Taxonomy still needs to be better defined and will grow and adapt as it ages
  11. 11. Works Cited  Anderson, I.W. & Krathwohl. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assesing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Longman, 2001.  Michael Fisher. Digigogy: A New Digital Pedagogy. 2009.  Andrew Churches. Bloom’s Taxonomy and Digital Approaches. 2007. Edorigami.