CDSM never stop learning

Tag Archives: taxonomy

CDSM E-learning Insights Learning Pedagogy Software

E-Learning Design Part 5: Learning through Creating (Blooms 21)

At CDSM, we draw on a range of theories – from the past and the present – to form the method and practice behind our award-winning e-learning. This is known as our ‘pedagogy’. In an earlier post in this series (E-Learning Design Part 2: Observable and Measurable Outcomes), we looked at the influence of Bloom’s taxonomy (1956) on our e-learning. This time, we’re going to take a look at how this taxonomy can be ‘flipped’, so that learners are actively involved in knowledge construction from the outset.

What is Blooms 21?

Conceived between 1949 and 1953 by a committee of educators, the original Bloom’s taxonomy identified a number of cognitive levels at which humans can function. These levels range from the basic function of understanding and recalling new information, to the more complex function of evaluating new information and connecting it with other knowledge. They are commonly displayed as a step pyramid, with the lower-level functions located at the bottom.

step-pyramid structure - Blooms 21

The step-pyramid structure is often interpreted as suggesting that the higher-level functions can only be reached if the levels below them have been achieved, and that not all learners will be able to reach the top level. Some educators strongly disagree with this structure, most notably Shelley Wright of the Buck Institute for Education (BIE):

“The presentation of the taxonomy as a pyramid suggests that one cannot effectively begin to address higher levels of thinking until those below them have been thoroughly addressed. Consequently, Blooms becomes a ‘step pyramid’ that one must arduously try to climb with your learners. Only the most academically adept are likely to reach the pinnacle.”

– Shelley Wright

5-2-aThough this taxonomy of the cognitive domain was revised by Anderson and Krathwohl in 2001, the visual metaphor of the step pyramid was still prevalent. In 2012, Wright suggested that the revised taxonomy should be flipped on its head, so that learners begin with an introduction to a subject through creating, rather than being bombarded with facts they need to remember.

Blooms 21

We would suggest that this flipped taxonomy, also referred to as ‘Blooms 21′, is more in keeping with a constructivist approach to learning due to its emphasis on learner contribution to the building of knowledge.

How CDSM’s Users Learn Through Creating

When used in the context of learning, the word ‘creating’ often conjures up images of early-years students fingerpainting, pritt-sticking and making lopsided ceramic bowls that only a parent or guardian could love. This is because ‘creating’ (alongside words like ‘create’, ‘creative’, ‘creativity’, etc.) has come to be more associated with producing something physical – like a painting or a piece of writing – than it has with the equally correct definition of “evolving from one’s own thought or imagination.”

Like Shelly Wright, CDSM believe that learners of any age can benefit from ‘getting creative’. We particularly like activities that ask the user to contribute their own ideas – ‘starter activities’ at the beginning of a unit of study, for example, enable the user to consider an idea before being told more about it.

Starter Activities

‘Suggested response’ activities are very useful in this context too, getting users to respond to a question or idea with the opportunity to see some of our suggestions if they wish (i.e. offering scaffolding when required). Open-ended questions are also a useful device, enabling users to reflect upon what they have just learnt.

As Wright asserts, “the more churn a brain experiences, the more likely it’s going to retain information,” and so asking a learner to begin with creating is a really effective way of getting those cerebral juices flowing. Learners are engaged with the process of learning from the start and therefore, by the time they reach the end of the unit of study, are more likely to have understood, interpreted and curated the essential knowledge they need.

Next time, in the concluding part of this series on e-learning design, we’ll be introducing CDSM’s Active Learning Model™ – our trademark formula for producing successful e-learning for our customers, based on our extensive knowledge, experience and application of the learning theories we have explored throughout this series.

Take Me To Part 6>

To make sure you don’t miss it, follow us and subscribe.

Subscribe
CDSM E-learning Learning Pedagogy

E-Learning Design Part 2: Observable and Measurable Outcomes

At CDSM, we draw on a range of theories – from the past and the present – to form the method and practice behind our award-winning e-learning. This is known as our ‘pedagogy’. In our last post (E-Learning Design Part 1: Structure, Repetition and Reinforcement), we gave you an insight into how we use some of the essential aspects of the theory of ‘behaviourism’ in our digital learning solutions. This time, we’re going to take a closer look at the behaviourist approach of having observable and measurable outcomes, and explain why it’s an important aspect of our e-learning.

What are Observable and Measurable Outcomes?

The use of observable and measurable outcomes in learning is linked to something called ‘Bloom’s Taxonomy’. Between 1949 and 1953, a committee of educators – chaired by Benjamin Bloom – met for a series of conferences designed to improve curricula and examinations. As a result of these conferences, the committee came up with a taxonomy that classified skills from least complex to most complex.

Since the taxonomy’s first volume (Handbook I: Cognitive) was published in 1956, Bloom’s name has been synonymous with lesson planning for teachers across the world. In Handbook I, Bloom and his committee identified a number of cognitive levels at which humans can function. These range from the basic function of understanding and recalling new information, to the more complex function of evaluating new information and connecting it with other knowledge.

Bloom's Taxonomy Cognitive Domain

Bloom’s cognitive levels are commonly displayed as a step pyramid, with the lower-level functions located at the bottom. This taxonomy of the cognitive domain was revised by Anderson and Krathwohl in 2001:

Bloom's Taxonomy Cognitive Domain

The step-pyramid structure is often interpreted as suggesting that the higher-level functions can only be reached if the levels below them have been achieved, and that not all learners will be able to reach the top level. Some educators strongly disagree with this structure, especially when it is applied to Anderson and Krathwohl’s revised taxonomy. Shelley Wright of the Buck Institute for Education (BIE) goes as far to suggest that the revised taxonomy should be flipped on its head, so that learners begin with an introduction to a subject through creating, rather than being bombarded with facts they need to remember (but that’s for another blog post).

How CDSM Use Observable and Measurable Outcomes

At CDSM, we often use observable and measurable outcomes – or ‘learning outcomes’ – in our e-learning modules. These appear at the start of the module, allowing our users to recognise exactly what they should expect to learn.

Learning Outcomes

Each learning outcome begins with an ‘action verb’, indicating something that the user should be able to do once they have completed the module. Our learning outcomes use action verbs – words such as ‘evaluate’, ‘discuss’, ‘construct’ or ‘classify’ – rather than more general verbs, such as ‘understand’, which are much harder to observe or check and measure a user’s progress against.

We often use action verbs in the context of independent e-learning, where users receive little to no face-to-face interaction with a teacher, trainer or peers. We believe that independent users need a clear indication of what they will be expected to achieve from the outset, as this allows them to ensure that they have chosen the correct course and can commit to completing it. They also inform the design of the ongoing and final assessment activities that are critical to checking learners’ understanding and progress.

To find out what other theories inform our pedagogy, keep an eye out for Part 3 of this series, where we’ll be introducing ‘constructivism’ – an approach which believes the learner should be an active participant in the learning process, constructing their own understanding and knowledge of the subject matter through experience and reflection.

Take Me To Part 3 >

To make sure you don’t miss it, follow us and subscribe.

Subscribe