Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- archive:uniwork [2026/04/04 13:35] – azman
+++ archive:uniwork [2026/04/04 13:36] (current) – removed azman
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-====== Pieces from Unisite ======
-Stuffs I used to have on my main page at uni.
-===== Bloom's Learning Taxonomy =====
-//"Any fool can know. The point is to **understand**."// **- Albert Einstein**
-My personal view on this.
-//**Note** My main reference regarding this is the [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom%27s_Taxonomy|Wikipedia]] page, and this other [[https://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/bloom.html|site]].//
-| **What It Is** |
-The original learning taxonomy by Benjamin Bloom (1956) have identified three learning domains: **Cognitive** (mental skills @ knowledge), **Affective** (growth in feelings or emotional areas @ attitude) and **Psychomotor** (manual or physical skills @ skills). Bloom (and his committee) elaborated only on the first domain, with the second one defined by another group that also include Bloom (Krathwohl, Bloom, Masia, 1973). The definition of the third domain, however, was not directly linked to Bloom. Instead it has been discussed in 3 popular versions: Simpson (1972), Dave's (1975) and Harrow's (1972).
-//**Note:** Lorin Anderson, a former student of Bloom, revisited the cognitive domain in the learning taxonomy in the mid-nineties and made some changes, with perhaps the two most prominent ones being, 1) changing the names in the six categories from noun to verb forms, and 2) slightly rearranging them (Pohl, 2000). The name changes has been included below after the original names and in bold italic. The 'create' and 'evaluate' categories have been swapped and this is thought to be a more accurate hierarchy.//
-In the latest development, I can see the rationale of Anderson's arrangements where synthesis (create) is placed highest in the hierarchy. However, I think Bloom's decision to place it where it were (below evaluation) is simply based on a different point of view.The way he sees it, you cannot possibly make an evaluation if you cannot produce (synthesis) something of your own - i.e. going through the experience. So, in that sense, the original Bloom's Taxonomy was, I think, spot-on. Then again, nowadays a lot of people claim themselves to be expert (making critical reviews of other people's work) when they themselves have never actually had the experience! Go watch [[https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0382932/|Ratatouille]] and you'll understand what I mean.
-So, bottom line? Personally, I think synthesis should be considered at a higher level so as to remind others that the people who do evaluation needs to actually gain that level (synthesis) before they can evaluate synthesized work! So, in a way, that's also saying evaluation is higher than synthesis. Therefore, I would place them at the same level and only those who are excellent in respective fields can acquire this level. We should not expect EVERYONE to attain them.
-//**Note**: Just a thought - looking at Einstein's quote, notice that the point is to **understand**! So, in my opinion, Bloom's level 2 is good enough for general education objective. The higher levels are relatively 'expert' levels that should not be imposed on everybody. Of course, this assumes the evaluation is done correctly (because the way things are done, even the so-called cognitive-level-6 evaluation is based on things that can be memorized).//
-| **Cognitive Domain** |
-No matter what others say, I think this is the only domain that directly affects the learning process. This is where it all begins, and this is where it grows. So, I personally think this domain is still very much important and needs to be emphasized especially in technical education where most people thinks the psychomotor domain should be given 'equal' attention, along with affective domain. This really depends on how they define these two domains. I think Bloom was right not to define the two 'support' (at least from my point of view) domains. Although I don't deny the importance of affective domain in ensuring proper transfer of knowledge, I really think this domain boils down to ONE thing: how interested (or, maybe how motivated - but this can be discussed elsewhere) are the learners in obtaining the knowledge. And how high (or from another point of view, how deep) are they interested in going? (i.e. just  want to know, capable of explaining to others, capable of improvising, etc.) On the other hand, psychomotor is really just how well our physical self can implement the knowledge. To me, all the 'advanced' levels in psychomotor are obtained through integration with the cognitive domain. (Maybe I should write a whole paragraph on this... later).
-The six levels as described in wikipedia:
-  * **Knowledge** //**(Remember)**// => Exhibit memory of previously-learned materials by recalling facts, terms, basic concepts and answers
-  * **Comprehension** //**(Understand)**// => Demonstrative understanding of facts and ideas by organizing, comparing, translating, interpreting, giving descriptions, and stating main ideas
-  * **Application** //**(Apply)**// => Using new knowledge. Solve problems to new situations by applying acquired knowledge, facts, techniques and rules in a different way
-  * **Analysis** //**(Analyze)**// => Examine and break information into parts by identifying motives or causes. Make inferences and find evidence to support generalizations
-  * **Synthesis** //**(Create)**// => Compile information together in a different way by combining elements in a new pattern or proposing alternative solutions
-  * **Evaluation** //**(Evaluate)**// => Present and defend opinions by making judgments about information, validity of ideas or quality of work based on a set of criteria
-| **Affective Domain** |
-From my personal point of view - when it comes to learning, as I've already mentioned earlier, this domain actually displays interest level of the student. If a student is only in the class because he/she HAS to, they will only (at most) listen or **receive** what is being taught. They will not inquire more than what is being given.
-//**Note**: maybe I can elaborate more later???//
-The five levels in this domain as described in wikipedia:
-  * **Receiving** => The lowest level; the student passively pays attention. Without this level no learning can occur.
-  * **Responding** => The student actively participates in the learning process, not only attends to a stimulus; the student also reacts in some way.
-  * **Valuing** => The student attaches a value to an object, phenomenon, or piece of information.
-  * **Organizing** => The student can put together different values, information, and ideas and accommodate them within his/her own schema; comparing, relating and elaborating on what has been learned.
-  * **Characterizing** => The student holds a particular value or belief that now exerts influence on his/her behaviour so that it becomes a characteristic.
-| **Psychomotor Domain** |
-This domain is actually the 'physical' side of things. When this taxonomy was created, the examples given were the manipulation of tools and instruments (e.g. hand, hammer). So, translating that to the current scenario, that includes using computers - typing, using mouse/pointers, etc.
-Rightfully so, Bloom and his colleagues never created subcategories for skills in the psychomotor domain. However, since then, other educators have created their own psychomotor taxonomies.