fall 2006 the new taxonomies: moving from the knowledge age to the conceptual age valorie hargett,...

Fall 2006

The New Taxonomies: Moving From the Knowledge Age to the Conceptual Age

Valorie Hargett, Section Chief

Social Studies/English Language Arts

Secondary Division

North Carolina Department of Public Instruction

Fall 2006

IF …

Intelligence is teachable, learnable, multiple types

Intelligence is impacted by experience, instruction and/or by nature

Intelligenceis flexible and subject to change, both up and down

Intelligence has the capacity to continue growing throughout one’s life

Intelligence (cognitive functioning) is enhanced and/or impacted by certain interventions

THEN…What are our universal frameworks, models or theories in

which we communicate with one another to “grow or increase” our cognitive capacity?

Fall 2006

Introducing the 1950’s

Benjamin Bloom -

Used for the past fifty years as a codification system whereby educators could design learning objectives that have a hierarchical organization

Remains a standard reference for discussions of testing and evaluation, curriculum development and teaching and teacher education.

Became a powerful tool for objectives-based evaluation that had not been achieved before

Fall 2006

Model of Evaluation

1980 - Higher levels of thinking

1983 - A Nation at Risk

1984 - ASCD, Racine, Wisconsin

1985 - 32 States testing

1990 - Additional states enter

2001 - NCLB

1965 - Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)

1970 - Statewide testing

Fall 2006

The Original Bloom’s Taxonomy

Framework for communication between individuals

Tool for designing test items especially multiple choice

Fall 2006


Evaluation

Synthesis

Analyzes

Application

Comprehension

Knowledge

Fall 2006


Evaluation

Synthesis

Analyzes

Application

Comprehension

Knowledge

All NOUNS for processes

One dimensional

Hierarchical

Degrees of difficulty as the basis for the difference between levels of the taxonomy

Multiple types of Knowledge

Very cognitively ambiguous verbs

Failure for trained educators to recognize questions at higher levels as more difficult than at lower levels

Fall 2006

Evaluation

Synthesis

Analysis

Application

Comprehension

Knowledge


Fall 2006

Why the Revised Taxonomy?

Historical link (1949 to the present)

Two dimensions match the structure of all objectives: subject-verb-object.

Verbs are critical since they represent the cognitive processes; objects, in noun form, represent the subject-matter content.

Complete “crossing” of rows with columns (i.e., students can remember factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge).

Fall 2006

6.CREATE

THE TAXONOMY TABLE

D. Metacognitive

Knowledge

C. ProceduralKnowledge

B. Conceptual Knowledge

A. Factual Knowledge

1. REMEMBER

2.UNDERSTAND

3.APPLY

4.ANALYZE

5.EVALUATE

Fall 2006

The Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy Table Project Bright IDEA 2 -Kindergarten-Language Arts

The Cognitive Process Dimension

The Knowledge Dimension

1 Remember

2 Understand

3 Apply

4 Analyze

5 Evaluate

6 Create

A Factual

Knowledge

G2.0 3-A1 G1.0 4-A1

G1 .01-A2 G1.0 2-A2 G1.0 4-A2 G1.0 5-A2 G2.0 5-A2 G4.0 6-A2 G5.0 1-A2

G1.0 3-A3 G2.0 1-A3 G2.0 2-A3 G2.0 3-A3 G2.0 7-A3 G3.0 1-A3 G3.0 4-A3 G4.0 1-A3 G4.0 2-A3 G4.0 3-A3 G4.0 4-A3 G4.0 5-A 3 G5.0 2-A3 G5.0 3-A3

G3.0 3-A4

G2.0 4-A6

B Conceptual Knowledge

G3.0 2-B2 G3.0 4-B3 G5.0 1-B3

G4.0 6-B4 G5.0 1-B4 G5.0 1-B4

C Procedural Knowledge

G2.0 6-C2

G4.0 6-C6

D Meta

Cognitive Knowledge

Fall 2006

Major Characteristics of Bloom’s

Framework Two Dimensions

Cognitive processesKnowledge Dimensions

Cognitive Processes renamed and reorganized

Least cognitively ambiguous verbs Knowledge Subcategories renamed and

reorganized Strong verb-noun relationship

Fall 2006

Major Characteristics of Bloom’s

Analysis and alignment for learning, teaching and assessment (format/structure)

Tool for unpacking standards Tool for extending standards Tool for defensible differentiated instruction Not a cumulative hierarchy Subcategories overlap Omission of problem solving and critical

thinking

Fall 2006

6.CREATE

THE TAXONOMY TABLE

D. Metacognitive

Knowledge




1. REMEMBER

2.UNDERSTAND

3.APPLY

4.ANALYZE

5.EVALUATE

MEMORYMEMORY UNDERSTANUNDERSTANDD

PROCEDURALPROCEDURAL

OPINIONOPINION

Fall 2006

Designing a New Taxonomy of Educational Objectives

“A place holder for my thinking.”Robert Marzano

Fall 2006

A New Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Robert Marzano

Model of Behavior

New Task Self-System Decides to Engage

No – Continue current behavior

YES

Metacognitive System Sets Goals and Strategies

Cognitive System Processes Relevant Information

Knowledge Domain

Fall 2006

Recall Execution Synthesis Representation Matching Classifying Error Analysis

Generalizing Specifying Decision Making

Problem Solving

Experimental Inquiry

Investigation

Knowledge Domain

Knowledge Utilization

The New Taxonomy of Educational Objectives by Robert Marzano

Three Systems and Knowledge

Self System

Beliefs about the importance of the knowledge

Emotion associated with knowledge

Belief about the Efficacy (ability to learn)

Specifying learning goal Monitoring for execution of knowledge

Monitoring for clarity

Metacognitive SystemMonitoring for

accuracy

Overall Motivation to Learn

Information Conceptual and Factual Mental Procedures Physical Procedures

Cognitive System

Retrieval Comprehension Analysis

Fall 2006

Marzano’s Taxonomy

Levels of Processing Knowledge Domains

1. Retrieval2. Comprehension

3. Analysis

4. Knowledge Utilization

5. Metacognitive System

6. Self-System

1. Information

3. Psychomotor Procedures

2. Mental Procedures

Fall 2006

Student Cues and Questions (Robert Marzano)

Teacher Cues and Questions

A. Examining Importance

How important is this to me? What is my reasoning? How logical is my reasoning?

How have I provided opportunity or opportunities for the students to express why this is important? How have I supported students in checking the logic in their reasoning?

B. Examining Efficacy

How capable do I think I am to learn this? What is my reasoning? How logical is my reasoning?

How have I encouraged or promoted confidence in students to learn new materials, ideas, concepts and/or procedures? How reasonable and logical are these pursuits in relationship to the request?

C. Examining Emotional Response

What is my emotional response to this? What is the reasoning behind my response? How logical is my response?

How have I provided opportunity or opportunities for students to explore their emotional response to a topic, idea, concept or procedure? How have I assisted students in examining the logic behind their emotional response?

D. Examining Motivation

What is my level of motivation to learn this? What is my reasoning? How logical is my reasoning?

How have I provided opportunity or opportunities for the students to become interested in the new materials, ideas, concepts and/or procedures thus motivating them to be engaged in the learning process?

Adaptation from Developing Minds Edited by Art CostaStudent and Teacher Cues and Questions

For the Levels of the New Taxonomy by Robert Marzano

Level 6: Self

Fall 2006



How have I taken time to prepare and/or provided opportunities for students to develop goals and to discuss steps for attacking problems, rules to remember and directions to follow? Have students created a road map to accomplish desired goals? If so, how? (Costa, 2001)How have I provided time for student reflections? Are students evaluating how effective possible solutions are to problems, how productive the strategies are, whether instructions were followed correctly and what would be some alternative more effective strategies for the future? (Costa, 2001) Lessons learned?

C. Monitoring Clarity

About what am I clear and about what am I not clear in terms of this knowledge?

How clearly are students articulating the new knowledge? Do students have a deep understanding of the knowledge (interpreting, exemplifying, classifying, summarizing, inferring, comparing and explaining)? (Anderson, 2001)

D. Monitoring Accuracy

About what am I accurate and about what am I not accurate in terms of this knowledge?

How accurately are students detecting errors and recovering from those errors? Identifying areas where errors most likely might occur? Selecting a strategy or strategies that will reduce the possibility of error and provide easy recovery? (Rigney, 1980)



What is my goal relative to learning this?What have I planned for accomplishing this goal?

A. Goal Specification

Level 5: Metacognition

B. Process Monitoring

What is working well and what is not working well relative to my use of this skill or process?

Fall 2006



A. Decision Making

How can this knowledge be used to make a decision? What decision can be made about the knowledge?

How have I provided appropriate decision making models/graphic organizers and provided instruction in how to use them correctly? Do students demonstrate understanding in how to use models across various disciplines?How have I provided appropriate problem solving models/graphic organizers and provided instruction in how to use them correctly? How do students demonstrate understanding in how to use problem solving models across disciplines? How do students understand the characteristics/indicators of good problem solving? How have I provided opportunities for students to explain their hypothesis and conclusions? Do students understand how to evaluate themselves and to become better problem solvers? Is, how?How have I provided students with appropriate models/graphic organizers for experimental inquiry? How have I used familiar content to teach students the steps for experimental inquiry? How have I provided guidance as needed? How have I provided opportunities for students to explain their hypotheses and conclusions?

D. InvestigationHow can this knowledge be used to help investigate something?

How have I provided students with appropriate models/graphic organizers for the process? How have I used familiar content to teach the process? How have I provided opportunities for students to explain their hypotheses and conclusions?



How can this knowledge be used to help generate and test a hypothesis? What hypotheses can be generated and tested about knowledge?

C. Experimental Inquiry

Level 4: Utilization

B. Problem Solving

How can this knowledge be used to help solve a problem? What problem can be solved about the knowledge?

Fall 2006



A. MatchingHow is this knowledge similar to and different from other knowledge?

How can I improve students listening, observation and description skills in order to detect correspondences between ideas, objects, concepts, principles, etc?How have I provided students with appropriate models/graphic organizers for the process? How have I used familiar content to teach the process and then provided students opportunities to classify items using their own rules for category membership? How have I provided opportunities for students to explain their hypotheses and conclusions?How have I taught students how to monitor for accuracy and clarity so as to detect and to reduce possible errors? How have I taught students to make either a quick fix or to retreat to the last known correct operation and then to proceed on task? (Rigney, 1980)How have I provided students with models of deductive and inductive thinking? How have I, and possibly other colleagues, provided opportunities for students to use generalizations from interdisciplinary perspectives across the disciplines? How have I monitored how well students understand generalizations? How will I help students who are struggling with developing understanding of generalizations?

E. SpecifyingWhat predictions can be made and proven based on this knowledge?

How may I guide students to develop generalizations based on stated knowledge gained from the deductive and/or inductive thinking skills models? What hypotheses may be developed form other models students may know and use?

Level 3: Analysis



B. Classifying

C. Error Analysis

D. Generalizing

To what general category does this knowledge belong? What are the subcategories of this knowledge?

What errors (if any) have been made in the presentation or use of this knowledge?

What generalizations can be inferred from this knowledge?

Fall 2006



How have I provided students opportunities to construct meaning from instructional messages, including oral, written and graphic communication? How have students connected prior knowledge and constructed new meaning? Do students understand the relationships between ideas, wholes, and parts? If so, how?

B. RepresentationHow can the basic structure of this knowledge be represented symbolically or graphically?

How have I provided students with opportunities to represent and structure their knowledge through graphic organizers, pictographic representations, mental images, physical models and kinesthetic representations?

A. RecallIs this accurate about the knowledge?

How have I designed instruction to allow students to store knowledge in multiple memory pathways (implicit and explicit, and opportunities to retrieve long-term information from the multiple pathways?

B. Execution Perform this skill or process.How have I provided students opportunity or opportunities to apply the skill or process to a familiar task? How have I monitored students for possible error analysis in the execution of the skill or process?

Level 1: Retrieval



Level 2: Comprehension

A. Synthesis

What is the basic structure of this knowledge - main ideas versus supporting ideas, sequence of information, relationship between the parts?

Fall 2006

Characteristics of Marzano’s Taxonomy

A “model” or “theory” of human thought (allow for prediction of phenomenon)

Flow of info ALWAYS (?) (self to metacognitive to cognitive and then knowledge)

Two dimensions (Three Systems and Knowledge)

Self-System -interrelated beliefs and goals Metacognitive - Goals/learning targets for new

tasks

Fall 2006

Characteristics of Marzano’s Taxonomy

A “model” or “theory” of human thought (allow for prediction of phenomenon)

Flow of info ALWAYS (?) (self to metacognitive to cognitive and then knowledge)

Two dimensions (Three Systems and Knowledge)

Self-System -interrelated beliefs and goals Metacognitive - Goals/learning targets for

new tasks

Fall 2006

6.CREATE

THE TAXONOMY TABLE

D. Metacognitive

Knowledge




1. REMEMBER

2.UNDERSTAND

3.APPLY

4.ANALYZE

5.EVALUATE

RetrievalRetrieval ComprehensioComprehensionn

KnowledgeKnowledge

UtilizationUtilizationAnalysisAnalysis

InformationInformation

InformationInformation

Mental/Mental/Physical Physical

ProceduresProcedures

MetacognitiMetacognitionon

SelfSelf

Fall 2006

Some Conclusions

To solve shared problems, we need shared lenses.

Shared lenses provide a common way of thinking about problems and a common language to talk about them.

Any shared lens (framework) is better than no lens at all. Without a shared lens, we are all in this alone.

fall 2006 the new taxonomies: moving from the knowledge age to the conceptual age valorie hargett,...

Documents