I am in the process of fine-tuning a workshop I am giving
next weekend and I am thinking about a recent piece of CPD I have had. I always
think a good sign of a good piece of CPD is the amount of thinking that takes
place after the session. For years, I have sat in numerous sessions in various
schools. I have led, participated, listened and watched. I have written on post-it
notes, sugar paper and flipcharts. They can be usually categorised into three
categories: ‘I know that’ category; ‘made me think’ category; and ‘it won’t
work’ category. It is not that I am being cruel or arrogant, but some CPD works
and some doesn’t work. It is not a criticism of the person leading it, but the
ideas that are being propagated.
Ofsted are struggling now with the concept of teaching
styles and preferable ways of education. As they hold so much power, it is not
hard to see why their judgements are seen as indicators of what is right and
what is wrong. CPD too is a minefield. In its use by schools, it can be
suggested that some CPD ideas are the right ideas and your failure to use these
ideas is failure of your teaching. The best CPD is CPD that makes me think. It makes me look at
my current model/s of teaching and consider this additional question. This
idea. It becomes a mirror to my own practice. Look at myself and consider what
I could do to be better.
Education is like a greengrocer. It is full of vegetables.
They are all good for you. They provide minerals and vitamins, and other stuff.
You can cook the vegetables in lots of different ways. You still, however, get
the same minerals, vitamins and other stuff. There are so many different ways
to cook and prepare that no one person cooks in the same way. The end results
are fairly the same: energy. Yet, the preparation, the cooking and the meal all
look different. Education is like that. Full of vegetables – not in that sense
of the word! CPD should be like cooking. It should be like watching Nigella or
Delia. They both cook. They both make nice meals. They just do it in a
different way. Nigella might have a better recipe for my Year 7s, but Delia’s
recipe for tripe and onions works a treat with Year 11s. One thing: I just know
that Jamie Oliver’s ideas will never work with the class. For a start, it is so
difficult to do that in English.
Anyway, I had a CPD session that fell in to that category of
‘made me think’ CPD. It had already generated one blog post. See it here:
Frankenstein’s Essay. But, it also made me think of another question:
Does Bloom’s Taxonomy really work in English?
It is a simple question. Most might say yes. It is assumed
that it will. Bloom has become a mantra for some teachers. A lull in a discussion
or meeting on planning or curriculum could eventually lead to Bloom’s Taxonomy.
How does this fit in with Bloom? It is
as if Bloom is an extra student you have to consider in every lesson you
teach?
So, what is my ‘beef’ with Bloom’s Taxonomy? Let’s just
remind ourselves of the structure of learning according to Bloom.
Remembering
Understanding
Applying
Analysing
Evaluating
Creating
We are led to believe that 'remembering' is less complex
skills than 'creating' and therefore it is one of the first things that students
do in the learning process. I would say that I am a good little teacher and I
get students to do a lot of these skills in lessons.
Problem 1: Creating
We have the impression that creating is a high-level skill.
The verbs used in association with this aspect of the taxonomy are:
categorizes, combines, compiles, composes,
creates, devises, designs, explains, generates, modifies, organizes, plans,
rearranges, reconstructs, relates, reorganizes, revises, rewrites, summarizes,
tells, writes
The problem I have is that in English we are constantly
creating. Like Art, Drama and Music, we spend most of our time creating
something. We are the subjects that create. A story. A poem. An article. For
us, creating is articulating. It is how students communicate in our subject. We
compose all the time. Composition is our game. Creating is more complex than
being a high or low-level skill. In fact, a lot of my lessons are inversions of
Bloom’s Taxonomy. I start them creating something. Then, they evaluate it and
analyse what they have done. I teach them something to help their understanding.
Finally, I get them to remember what they have learnt. To be honest, I start
complex and things become simple.
Furthermore, the notion of creating things is a problem for
me. In English, we could easily get students to write a missing chapter or
write in the style of, but is it as complex as evaluating and analysing? There
have been numerous sequels of well-known texts and yet we don’t hold these
writers in esteem for their cleverness. In fact, they are forgotten. Surely,
someone who can write in the style of Dickens is really clever. No, the people
we think are clever are the people how have analysed his life and explored the
motivations behind his choices.
Sadly, the writers of - yuk- the sequels to ‘The Woman in
Black’ have shown that they are far from clever. If you understood the novel,
you would understand that there really can’t be a sequel because the cat is out
of the bag. A key feature of the ghost story is mystery. Therefore, the sequel
cannot work. Unless, ‘The Woman in Black’ had a distant cousin, who just so happened
had a tragic past and as a result affected her so much she wanted to kill the offspring
of people.
In fact, creating an extra chapter of a book can be a far simpler
process than we are led to believe:
·
Use some of the words the writer has used.
·
Use some of the techniques the writer has used.
·
Use some of the characters / settings and ideas
that the writer has presented to you.
We do this kind of task because it is fun. But, I question
the level it gets on the taxonomy. Is it really better than analysing? Now,
parodying or satirising a text is being high-level. Why? Because in that
creation of something they demonstrate a higher level of understanding. Oh, and
they use humour!
Problem 2: Remembering
Bloom’s Taxonomy having remembering at the bottom almost
suggests that if your lessons concentrate on remembering you are doing some bad
teaching. Yet, I teach novels. Long novels. Novels with more than a hundred
pages. Novels with big words. In English, remembering is a skill that differs
across the sets. Students in Set 5 struggle to remember to use full stops and
students in Set 1 remember than three months ago you promised to show them the
film version of ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’.
When writing an essay about a novel, students getting the
top bands will be students that:
·
Remember other examples in the text
·
Remember other texts that link to the idea
·
Remember other ways of saying a similar point
·
Remember precise words
The top students spot connections and patterns in work but
key to doing this is remembering. You cannot make a connection if you can’t
remember a thing in the opening. The students with the best memories make the
best students.
My new version of
Bloom’s Taxonomy
Creating
Understanding
Evaluating
Analysing
Remembering
Parodying
I am sure you will disagree with me; I am happy for you to
disagree. I just struggle with a rigid model of learning. We all learn in
different ways. Maybe, the creative ones learn things differently. I know I do.
Thanks for reading,
Xris
Thanks for reading,
Xris
Hi, thanks for your really interesting post. I love the idea that CPD should be measured by how much it makes you think. Many of your points are thought provoking so that makes reading this good CPD. Rather than disagree with you, which difficult to do as your points are perfectly logical as you've laid them out, I should point out that you may have misunderstood Bloom somewhat. Have you read the original? Several of the points you make in opposition are actually made by Bloom himself in his original taxonomy. For example, you point out that you struggle with a rigid model of learning, Bloom makes it clear that not only does he agree with this, the taxonomy is not in anyway rigid. It's main purpose is to provide a common framework/language to further research both by academics and practitioners. You also imply a hierarchy of quality in your remarks about remembering being at the bottom that are not in the original at all. Bloom makes it clear as early as his introduction (and then repeatedly throughout) that far from being the bottom of the taxonomy, the lowest levels are the foundation upon which the higher order concepts are built. In short, I think you're far more in agreement with the spirit of the original than you seem to think you are.
ReplyDeleteThanks again for your post
Interesting reading, you mention that remembering makes the best students, this in accordance with the requirements of the exam boards, surely questioning is what is going to be most valuable in life, which is the point about valuable cod that you make
ReplyDelete