Bloom's taxonomy for assessing language skills Content introduction main body

1.3. Different typs of bloom's taxonomy for
assessing language skills
One Community does not believe there is any one system that is the best. It is our Highest Good of All philosophy to look at all systems and all methodologies. Our goal is to learn and integrate everything we can to better inspire and create the Education for Life program as an open source and free-shared globally collaborative and accessible program available to positively contribute to the education of anyone who chooses to use it.
Here is our continually evolving list of Bloom’s Taxonomy revised ideas divided into the categories of the Education for Life program:
Bloom’s Taxonomy Foundations of Leadership, Teaching, and Communicating
If you’d like to help us make this list better, please submit your Bloom’s Taxonomy inspired suggestions so that we can integrate them here and into the Foundations of Teaching, Leadership, and Communicating component.
● Write an operations manual and keep it accessible
● Make decisions based first and foremost upon efficacy
● Recite policies to help to remember them and keep them fresh
● Use the laws of statistics to evaluate the reliability of written tests
● Gather information, determine faulty parts, advise new structure
● Increase comprehension by having the steps of complex tasks explained back in one’s own words
● Ideas to add? Click here to make this page better!
Bloom’s Taxonomy Curriculum Ideas
If you’d like to help us make this list better, please submit your Bloom’s Taxonomy inspired suggestions so that we can integrate them here and into the Curriculum for Life component.
● Applying – Implementing, carrying out, using, executing
● Creating – designing, constructing, planning, producing, inventing, devising, making
● Remembering – Recognizing, listing, describing, identifying, retrieving, naming, locating, finding
● Evaluating – Checking, hypothesizing, critiquing, experimenting, judging, testing, Detecting, Monitoring
● Analyzing – Comparing, organizing, deconstructing, attributing, outlining, finding, structuring, integrating
● Understanding – Interpreting, summarizing, inferring, paraphrasing, classifying, comparing, explaining, exemplifying
● Ideas to add? Click here to make this page better!
Bloom’s Taxonomy Teaching Strategies
If you’d like to help us make this list better, please submit your Bloom’s Taxonomy inspired suggestions so that we can integrate them here and into the Teaching Strategies for Life component.
● Singing the states in alphabetical order
● Read a paragraph and explain to a friend what it meant
● Draw a picture for each piece of information given, then put it all in an order
● Build a home for an animal based on information known
● Ideas to add? Click here to make this page better!
Bloom’s Taxonomy Learning Tools and Toys
If you’d like to help us make this list better, please submit your Bloom’s Taxonomy inspired suggestions so that we can integrate them here and into the Learning Tools and Toys for Life component.
● Please submit your suggestions here.
Bloom’s Taxonomy Classroom Design
If you’d like to help us make this list better, please submit your Bloom’s Taxonomy inspired suggestions so that we can integrate them here and into the Ultimate Classroom component.
● Equip the room with as many necessary tools as possible for unlimited creation
● One room split into each section for working on that particular aspect/level, the center of the circle being the ‘creation’ section
● Ideas to add? Click here to make this page better!
If you have trained in the general education of children and young adults, you will probably have encountered Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. The taxonomy occurs on almost all teacher-training courses. However, if your training and current concern is solely to do with the teaching of languages to adults, then the concepts may be new to you.
Briefly:
The Taxonomy of Educational Objectives is a framework for classifying statements of what we expect or intend students to learn as a result of instruction.
Krathwohl, 2002:212
The original taxonomy was worked out over a number of years, starting in 1949 and involved input from many hundreds of researchers, teachers and other specialists. In 1956, the first publication emerged with a 6-level hierarchy of educational objectives classified by the level of cognitive demands placed on the learners.
In the words of the original authors, the motivation behind the taxonomy lay in the fact that:
We are of the opinion that although the objectives and materials and techniques maybe specified in an almost unlimited number of ways, the student behaviors in involved these objectives can be represented by a relatively small number of classes.
Bloom et al, 1956:12
Bloom's taxonomy, and many other classifications of learning, is grounded on a simple idea: learning occurs when the mind makes connections between what it already knows and new, hitherto unknown items of information
Waters, 2006:319
It is, therefore, a cognitive theory of how learning happens and cognition of various sorts is what the taxonomy is about: thinking, in other words.
There are, of course, many different sorts of thinking and there's an obvious difference between trying to remember what one had for breakfast and writing a PhD thesis.
Here's a little test to see if you can pair examples of types of thinking together to distinguish one sort from another. There are twelve descriptions of thinking to match into 6 pairs. Think for a moment and then click on the table for an answer and an explanation.
In both the original and revised versions of the scheme, the categories are hierarchical so the level of cognitive challenge involved in their use rises from the bottom up. There are, in the revised version we shall be considering from here on, and in the original version, 6 levels (some of which overlap in the revision in particular).
This is a strict hierarchical system in the views of some proponents. In other words, each level feeds into the next so learners need to remember something before they can understand it, understand it before they can apply it, apply it before they can analyse it and analyse it before they can evaluate it.
At the highest level of create, learners must have remembered, understood, applied, analysed, and evaluated something before they can create anything new.
Others are more flexible in their approach and suggest that one can, for example, analyse what has been read or heard without necessarily having already applied it. It is also possible, of course, to evaluate something one has not yet applied but impossible to do so with something one has not remembered or understood and very difficult to do so with something one has not analysed.This concerns the ability to retrieve relevant knowledge in order to be able to apply other cognitive processes.
You cannot, for example, classify nouns into sets or fields unless you can recall the nouns in question.
Equally, you cannot speculate about the motives of a character in a story unless you can recall what the character did.Remembering facts and data in a foreign language is by no means a simple exercise. Input has, at some time to become intake for that to happen. For a guide to how that might occur, see the guide to input, linked in the list of related guides at the end.This is, of course, more demanding than remembering.The category grew originally from the distinction teachers often made between knowing and really knowing. For example, when reading a narrative, knowing consists of being able to recall information concerning who, when, what etc. but understanding involves being able to answer how and why questions.
A learner of English may, for example, know and be able to recall that a passive-voice clause in English is formed with the verb be in an appropriate tense but understanding involves knowing how it is used and why a passive structure is chosen. Remembering and understanding are not enough. The next step is to apply knowledge to the world around you.
For example:

1. 
   recognising affixes which form nouns (-ness, -tion etc.) is part of factual knowledge, understanding how nouns work to make meaning in combination with verbs and other word classes involves some understanding of the phenomenon but inferring meaning from a text by the recognition of how noun phrases are modified and act as the subjects and objects of verbs requires the application of knowledge and understanding for a communicative end.
   
2. 
   Recalling the modal auxiliary verb could to mean reference to past ability is factual knowledge, comprehending that it refers to ability or possibility depending on context and co-text is part of understanding the verb but being able to communicate the meaning of past unfulfilled ability in, e.g.: