Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy

1. Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy

2. 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

3. Overview • A refresher of Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy (1956) • Examining the six levels of Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy as defined by Andrew Churches (2001)

4. 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

5. Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy

6. 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

7. Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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. http://digigogy.blogspot.net. • Andrew Churches. Bloom’s Taxonomy and Digital Approaches. 2007. Edorigami. http://edorigami.wikispaces.com/Bloom%27s+and+ICT+tools