The Cognitive System is closest to a traditional taxonomy, with verbs such that describe learner actions such as recall, synthesis and experimental inquiry. In this system, learners prove they "understand" if they can: Of course, Wiggins and McTighe also helpfully provide what they call "6 Facets of Understanding," a sort of alternative (or supplement) to Bloom's Taxonomy. Wiggins and McTighe go on in the UbD series to ask, "Mindful of our tendency to use the words understand and know interchangeably, what worthy conceptual distinctions should we safeguard in talking about the difference between knowledge and understanding?" 2 Alternatives to Bloom's Taxonomy Why so much "stuff" for what should be a relatively simple relationship between learner and content?īecause it's so difficult to agree on what understanding is - what it looks like, what learners should be able to say or do to prove that they in fact understand. There are so many moving parts in learning: assessment design, academic standards, underpinning learning targets for each standard, big ideas, essential questions, instructional strategies - and on and on and on in an endless, dizzying dance. Wiggins and McTighe go on to say that "two generations of curriculum writers have been warned to avoid the term 'understand' in their frameworks as a result of the cautions in the taxonomy." 1 Of course, the Understanding by Design (UbD) series is in fact built on a handful of key notions, among them taking on the task of analyzing understanding, and then planning for it through backwards design.īut to pull back and look at the big picture is a bit troubling. teachers should be able to define such nebulous terms." some teachers believe their students should 'really understand,' others desire their students to 'internalize knowledge,' still others want their students to 'grasp the core or essence.' Do they all mean the same thing? Specifically, what does a student do who 'really understands' which he does not do when he does not understand? Through reference to the Taxonomy. In their seminal Understanding by Design series, Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe discuss the evasiveness of the term "understanding" by referencing Harold Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Cognitive Domain, a book project finished in 1956 by Dr. Then student understanding is re-assessed, deficiencies are further remediated - rinse, repeat - until the learner demonstrates acceptable evidence of understanding.īut even this Herculean effort - which incredibly leaves gaps nonetheless - is often not enough because of the nature of understanding itself. Next, in a collaborative group (PLCs and their data teams being the current trendy format), teachers together disaggregate data, perform item analyses, identify trends and possibility, and differentiate powerful and compelling instruction for each learner with research-based instructional strategies. Pre-assessments are given as tools to provide data to revise planned instruction. In a traditional (and perhaps utopian) academic structure, learning objectives are identified, prioritized, mapped and intentionally sequenced. But even with this shift from curriculum, instruction and teacher actions, and toward data, assessment and learning, there remains uncomfortable murkiness. Among the big ideas Richard and Rebecca DuFour brought to the educational mainstream consciousness was a shift from teaching to learning, a subtle but critical movement.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |