Reading: Making Thinking Visible part 2

Following on from the previous reading…

Quite a bit about thinking routines. I would like to see some.

They mention their website: http://www.pz.harvard.edu/vt . I wonder if it’s still there?

Blah. I lost focus on the words. At the moment, they’re just rattling off a history of the development of ideas. The process is probably important, but I will need to come back to this page again, since it’s not grabbing my interest. A same since they probably spent a good long time recording this. (Page xix).

Some rhetoric: engage learners, support thinking, develop understanding and encourage independence. Is that what I am doing in the classroom?

Do I have an overall philosophy in teaching? I live by a maxim of doing the best I can, and doing the most amount of good in a place or situation that I can. I have taken on some very unsavoury roles and jobs, ones that people tend to avoid. Partly to make a difference, but also partly because of naked ambition: take the roles no one wants and you will jump up the ranks faster.

To what end though? Money is always a factor, but I think I might be doing this even without the draw of a fat pay check.

I think maybe I just want to leave things in a better state than when I found it. I think that applies to students too. I just want to put them in abetter position than they were yesterday.

So what do I man by a better position?

I think perhaps…

It’s a complicated thing.

I want students to be independent. Strong enough to stand on their own two feet when something occurs. I also want them to be integrated into whatever environment they fin themselves in. I want them to be in a position to make the world a better place themselves.

I think I want them to be like me, and go forth into the world and leave things better than how they found them. I’m rambling now. Read more.

Ah, no.

I want students to be able to deal with that which is undiscovered. To be able to prepare for that which cannot be known. To be able to stand their ground against overwhelming chaos.

That’ll do.

Next step is how to measure my actions against that goal.

Finally.

Part 1: Some thinking about thinking

Damn, we’re starting with “according to the dictionary”. I hope this is an inside joke about how high school essays start…

Is it clear that learning is a product of thinking? I know of many passively gained skills I have, up to and including typing on a keyboard. Hmm.

Good point: What is meant by thinking? The question of what kind of thinking do you want to see in the classroom is a very good one, and leads me to think about what categorise of thought there are.

We have “bad thoughts”, “sweet thoughts”, “kind thoughts”, but is the mechanism for all these the same.

Off the top of my head, there are:

• active thoughts, which we try to force our brains to do.
• passive thoughts, where ideas seem to pop out of nowhere.
• empty thoughts, which flit through the brain but vanish fairly quickly leaving no impression

Hah, I’ve literally just written a blog post on what this author is discussing with Bloom’s being over taught. Funny, but shows I’m on the right track.

I’m always sceptical of people that use the phrase “problematic”.

The point raised about Bloom’s taxonomy being hierarchical is actually not a very good criticism. I think you need a standard hierarchy to work from, to gauge levels of mastery. Where I think Bloom’s falls down is that the descriptors and levels are actually wrong. Or at least not as high utility.

For example, being creative is not adequately described. As the book notes, Bloom’s work was based from… actually it doesn’t state it. In fact the book says it’s just a theory, which raises my sceptical eye brow further. I think the writer means hypothesis, so I will now be on my guard when the author refers to research and scientific process.

Question: Surely there should now be a weight of actual practice evidence on the success of Bloom’s model? It’s been enacted in education for over 50 years… there has to be some study on its efficacy.

Got a bit of reading list from this book. Remember to check those sources (which hopefully will not be behind a pay wall).

I feel like a language game is being played here. The author is using various different meanings of Bloom’s stages to muddy the clarity of those positions. For example, where understanding is concerned; Bloom’s taxonomy refers to demonstration of understanding, as in the fact/idea can be categorised or interpreted.

I think that perhaps Bloom’s show us levels of mastery of use of an idea: you can understand a concept without knowing the fine details of it.

As Piaget points out with children (sorry no citation yet!), a game can be understood long before an explanation of the rules is given.

So… your criticism of Bloom’s is incorrect in this case.

No, I don’t like it. The idea of removing the hierarchy just means your compass is broken. You can argue the directions are wrong, but without a map you’re just lost.

Up to page 8 now. I need to go do something, but I will look back on my thoughts here after I am done.

Summary

While I agree Bloom’s Taxonomy has its flaws, the criticisms of the author are not valid, and at this stage I assume to be subjective. To be sure that what the author is saying is correct I will need to read and research the following:

• Bloom’s original Taxonomy paper.
• The citations listed in the book.
• Papers on the efficacy of Bloom’s taxonomy in the classroom/teacher training.

I also have to be honest about a concern I have. I know that deconstructing hierarchies is a left-leaning philosophy. I do not insinuate political agenda here, or anything as corrupt as Lysenko-ism. I just think I’ll need to divine out assumptions made.

I don’t see moving up and down the hierarchy as evidence that the hierarchy is wrong. Simply that you can move up and down the hierarchy, and that learning is not some ratchet system, where one level is attained ad locked into place.