Mood:  not sure

I was kicking around ideas on a possible adaptation to the model of Bloom's Taxonomy I last posted.  It's rough, and I know it will need some work.  But I think it is the real viable alternative to this crazy model that seems so prevalent.  Of course, I'm just thinkin about thinkin...

So I tried a model with branching/supported idealogues.  That just didn't work.  There has to be some way to show that Application and Comprehension are faceted sides of the same activity.  Those have to be supported by base facts (Knowledge).  Resting on those foundations or incompassed as a higher, inner function of those two, are the fused actions of Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation.  I'm still trying to figure out whether those three, which can blend seamlessly, are part of the inner, deeper workings of Application/Comprehension, or whether they are supported (yet a higher function) by Application/Comprehension.

Seven years of teaching and designing instruction for adult education in highly technical skills has shown me that those advanced skills grow out of experience which can only be developed through Application.  Part of that comes from the actual definition of what our basic job skills are.  We were teaching what we did, but it was broken and inconsistent since not everyone passed along the same key information in the same way (standardization).  Only through formalizing our training were we able to codify what it is we do (at least at a very basic level).  Perhapse in another post I will attach that paper to show what I'm really talking about...  blam...  stinkin rabbit trail...

So anyhoo...  I'll work on this model some more.  Maybe I can even make it look purdy.

Well, I've taken on Bloom's Taxonomy and told everyone how silly I think it may be (like a bloated toad).  And I'll stand by that insight and statement.  I think the guy did some excellent work in codifying a usable idea that was easily transferable.  I just don't think life is that easy.

If the case is that current methodology and approaches don't cut it, what is there to fill it's place?  I've even been looking for a good, standardized, measurable tool/approach that could be used in place of modern educational practices.  But I just haven't seen anything revolutionary in practice or on the horizon.  I have seen hints of what I think could really change learning...

When you examine what it takes to be productive (in work, in school, in life),  you see that it involves action.  And most action has a performance measure (except maybe things in the relational realm).  So you can link production to performance achievement.  If it has a goal, an end-state, or accomplishment, it is probably task oriented.  Task accomplishment, however, is founded on so many other factors; knowledge, understanding, proper skill sets, focus, cooperation/coordination.  You name it, and it can probably be plugged in somewhere.

Mood:  quizzical

So, I've been thinking a lot lately about one foundational concept in the sphere of learning lately.  It's called Bloom's Taxonomy most commonly.  It is used i most educational circles as the cornerstone of building/planning learning.  It sits like a great big toad in the middle of the pond, and it goes something like this...

Now I put it in a pyramid shape to represent the concept that each level of progression is dependant (foundationally) on the preceding level.  Thus, Application follows Comprehension, and so on.

However, I really don't think this is the most efficient way to learn.  I also don't think that internalization and transfer of knowledge/skills occurs like this.  I think that learners (especially adult learners, and now learners from this media generation) are much more complex and really deserve the benefits of a fundamental change in the approach to teaching. 

Don't get me wrong, this concept works great when you are desiging courses and lessons.  It provides a very systematic and thorough approach to courseware.

I just think we need something different to be more successful in the future...standby to see what I can come up with, and enjoy brainstorming with me...

So today I was reading from the American Society of Training Developers (ASTD) Handbook for Workplace Professionals, and I had a few thoughts about the first chapter...

For time's sake it was certainly condensed and only touched briefly on training/teaching progression.  It was like watching a stone skip across the surface of a pond...little, light touches till it got toward the end.  Then the information was noticably deeper, and that just goes to show that with perspective (i.e. distance) comes more objectivity or less knowledge/interest.

The closer the topics touched on modern methods of education and training (post-WWII), the more information was presented.  The focus was on the post-industrial revolution switch to classroom education to exploit economies of scale etc.  This is probably due to the fact that these are still methods much in common practice today.

Yet I see more and more that educators/trainers are trying to make use ofsmaller groups and more interaction between student and educator.  This emphasis even goes as far as trainers pushing one-on-one training more and more (not across all industries).  It is almost reminiscent of apprenticeship programs currently in use in Europe and common during much of the Middle Ages.

I think that there is probably a happy medium to be struck between group and individual learning which seem to be the two extremes.  There must be an easily definable method of "fused" methodologies.  This method should be flexible and adaptable, yet solid enough to track and document.

Technology has allowed many breakthroughs in mapping and charting these processes which have been an invaluable aid in metacognition (thinking about how we think) in the training and education realm.  Common technology tools in use like computers, Internet, wikis, mobile devices (iPods, PDAs, etc.), and other information storing/sharing technologies have revolutionized delivery adn presentation.  They have redefined the classroom, small group, and individual learning.

So, technology may be the most desirable medium for creating this type of "fused methodology."  I know that educators are already exploring combining methods using distance learning courses as a type of proving ground.  But I still have yet to see a common or comprehensive definition of said method...

But then again, who cares right now as long workers get trained...right?

Alright, so for the past few years I've been "doing" learning/teaching in some form or another.  I've mostly been working with young adults in a technical, post-secondary level setting.  And I think I might have some interesting insights to share.  So, I'll just start out with some real basic (and fun) thoughts.

1.  We never grow-up on the inside.
     Even working with adults, it feels like being at home
     with my kids...crazy.

2. Learning is hard work.
     This goes for everyone whether teaching, learning,
     or providing support.

3.  WHO WANTS TO WORK?!?
     (Especially when you still feel like a kid inside.)

With those things in mind, it is amazing that we have anyone who ever gets a diploma or any sort of degree.  But we do, and somehow, whith all of that, learning happens. 

There has been so much study and codification of learning processes and teaching methodologies, it is amazing we can metacognate about the whole complex issue...  And see if you can find anyone to explain that to you in plain English (or language of your choice).  It is so complex and above the average person, that academics (and various other "big-brain" people) make big bucks trying to just explain what they mean.

Look, let me break down learning to the most simple factors from my point of view.  Then we'll see where further discussions take us.

1.  Teachers must plan for learning to occur.

2. Students must be receptive.

3. The relationship between teacher, student, and material is the key to real success.

4. Despite planning, receptiveness, and relationships learning happens.

5. All the fancy words (metacognition, encoding, clumping, methodologies, Bloom's Taxonomy, etc.) can't really explain why or how learning happens, they can only explain prefered conditions and mechanics.