2. Table of Contents  Overview Overview  Foundation Foundation  The Taxonomy Broken Down The Taxonomy Broken Down  The Digital Taxonomy Explained The Digital Taxonomy Explained  Differences from Bloom’s Taxonomy Differences from Bloom’s Taxonomy  Similarities with Bloom’s Taxonomy Similarities with Bloom’s Taxonomy  Conclusion Conclusion  Works Cited Works Cited

3. Overview  A refresher of Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy (1956)  Examining the six levels of Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy as defined by Andrew Churches (2001)

4. Foundation  Original Taxonomy was created by Benjamin S. Bloom in 1956  Revised in 2001 by Anderson and Krathwohl  The largest difference was replacing the nouns of the original taxonomy with verbs and a change in their order  Identified and outlined the cognitive domain which involves the development of intellectual skills  Each level builds on the previous level  An educator begins with Lower Order Thinking Skills (LOTS) and works up toward Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS)  Typically viewed as a pyramid with LOTS on the bottom and HOTS toward the top

5. Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy

6. The Taxonomy Broken Down  Remembering– memorization and the ability to recall information  Understanding – the ability to understand the meaning behind instructions  Applying – applying what was learned to a real world task  Analyzing– separating information into parts and making distinctions between hearsay and fact  Evaluating – bringing the parts together to form a whole with new meaning  Creating – making decisions based on the merits of an idea

7. Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy

8. The Digital Taxonomy Explained  Remembering – modern examples include the use of social bookmarking websites, use of search engines and social networking  Understanding – blog journaling, commenting on websites and categorizing items using folders  Applying – playing educational games, editing a wiki and sharing photos or documents online  Analyzing – creating “mashups” and leveraging Google Docs  Evaluating – moderating a forum, structured and reasoned blog responses and software beta-testing  Creating – directing or filming a video or podcast, programming software

9. Differences from Bloom’s Taxonomy  While the ideas still reverberate with today’s learners, they must be applied in a different manner to better engage these students  Using the Digital Taxonomy, educators will be able to teach HOTS to these younger students  Educators do not necessarily need to begin their lessons at the bottom of the pyramid  Strong emphasis on collaboration between learners  Larger integration of multimedia into lesson plans

10. Similarities with Bloom’s Taxonomy  Both taxonomies maintain the same verbage and basic principles  Maintain pyramid structure with lower order thinking skills at the bottom and gradual increase to higher order thinking skills

11. Conclusion  Churches’ update to Bloom’s Taxonomy allows educators to bring it into the modern classroom and apply it to the current, quickly changing technological environment  Bloom’s Taxonomy has been tweaked for well over 50 years and the Digital Taxonomy still needs to be better defined and will grow and adapt as it ages

12. Works Cited  Anderson, I.W. & Krathwohl. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assesing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Longman, 2001.  Michael Fisher. Digigogy: A New Digital Pedagogy. 2009. http://digigogy.blogspot.net. http://digigogy.blogspot.net  Andrew Churches. Bloom’s Taxonomy and Digital Approaches. 2007. Edorigami. http://edorigami.wikispaces.com/Bloom%27s+and+ICT+tools