So after reading over Bloom’s revised taxonomy it made me reflect on a previous workshop that I have attended, Visible learning by John Hattie. Within this work shop we looked at using the SOLO taxonomy (Structured Overview of Learning Outcomes) and how it compares with Bloom.
Rather than looking at a process that can used as a way to assess students, we must look at levels and depth of understanding that students have. I seems rather neat to take Bloom’s taxonomy, modify it and look at it as a ‘one size fits all’, where assessments are created and they are then shoe horned into Bloom’sTaxonomy. I would suggest that one size does not fit all and on the contrary one size fits might some.
Perhaps I am jaded from experience and SOLO is new and shiny… However, I do like an approach that looks at levels of understanding and can be used to measure or gauge those levels of understanding:
Unstructured, where one idea has been identified or named
Multi structural, where many ideas have been defined, described or listed
Relational, where related ideas are analyzed, applied, cause and effect has been explained and ideas have been justified
Extended abstract, where ideas have been extended, and learners are beginning to create their own ideas, hypothesize and generalize
Further to this, it is fair to say that with both taxonomies there are common factors. Higher order thinking skills are identified in Bloom’s Taxonomy and within the SOLO taxonomy these are termed conceptual. Bloom’s lower order thinking skills are termed surface deep within the SOLO taxonomy.
It also has to be understood that neither of these taxonomies can work in isolation and that there is a great need for teachers to collaborated when assessing learning, not only between year levels but across all year levels from K to 12. This kind of collaboration will only further strengthen any taxonomy used but it will give us a common idea of progress.