I think you're right again, Vince. The "pyramid" might not be the best way to describe "learning." As both you and Gregory Dykhouse suggest, the learning / knowledge process is constant in a classroom. So, maybe it should be a circle - or a cycle. After all, we (as adults) constantly learn new things about the world daily! I'm not sure that Bloom is the "end all, be all" of pedagogy, but I do know that knowledge is absolutely related to "thinking" and is an ongoing quest! 

While I can't promise any new sanctioned resources, I can give you an inverted Bloom's taxonomy for your use!

Image credit here..

I made it through the whole post (!), Casey, and I think you did a really fantastic job articulating the reasons why MCQs can be useful. I think was I like most is that you are thinking about the big picture. So long as they aren't a be-all, end-all approach to assessment, I can completely understand the ways in which they can be beneficial. I especially like the idea of using them to 'launch a discussion.' I also think that the point you made about using a variety of assessments in order to get the full picture is spot-on. Thanks for sharing these ideas!

This is an annual discussion we have in our department and in our PLCs. Do the kids have to read/hear/watch about history or can they do something active, then sprinkle in the more academic content for an extension? I have contended that activities, investigations, and hands-on exercises build an internal schema that serves as a structure for kids to hang their learning. 

We learn by doing. I've yet to hear about anyone learning how to throw a baseball or ride a bike then going out and trying, yet those experiences build lifelong learning and memories. 

Erik Christensen "Erik-sanctioned" is plenty powerful!

I find myself agreeing with your points here, Vince. I was sort of thinking along similar lines when reading all about Bloom's Taxonomy in the context of social studies. I think that some of the 'order' of the pyramid depends on the intended outcomes or goals. Some things require background knowledge to then draw conclusions or form interpretations. However, there are also opportunities to provide students with a set of primary sources and ask them to analyze and draw conclusions. (And consider what they are missing in order to analyze something more meaningfully.) Doing additional research in order to determine context or fill in the holes or gaps in their understanding means that more knowledge is necessary to effectively demonstrate higher-level thinking. It seems to me that a lot of the skills that are necessary to think like a historian require moving up, down, and through the pyramid. I think that having knowledge helps you to think critically, but this also goes both ways. Sometimes, we start to question or think about something and realize 'wow, I need to get more information/knowledge.' Perhaps one of the biggest takeaways, for me, is that learning can and should look different depending on outcomes and goals. I suppose I prefer the idea of a cycle/circle more than a linear model.

I want to start by pushing back slightly against the idea the Wineburg's thesis is that Bloom's Taxonomy doesn't work in our classrooms; instead, I would argue that he's saying the standard (and, frankly, lazy!) view of the taxonomy as a ladder doesn't work. That said, I think he's slightly misdiagnosing the problem.

The issue is in seeing the concept as a ladder. First we have to do level 1, then level 2, then level 3, and so on. In reality, however, deeper learning for students is most often found in classrooms where the teacher views Bloom as a web! These are connected and students have to freely flow between them to effectively do history. Viewing Bloom as web instead of ladder lets us more easily understand that knowledge is both a prerequisite for and a result of critical thinking.

Under the revised taxonomy we see "create" at the top rather than "evaluation" (originally this was termed "synthesis" but the revision, in addition to reordering the two higher levels, also shifted from nouns to verbs). To me, whether we label it "create" or "synthesize", our highest level skill remains directly connected to the knowledge domain! In a usable history, we begin with the question. By the end, we've created a new interpretation (or, perhaps, recreated one!) based on the evidence of the past available to us. In that way, we are contributing to new knowledge through creation/synthesis.

I really like this line of thinking Chris! If I'm reading you right, your idea is that knowledge is a critical part of the learning process - not just the end or the beginning?

I think your "Bloom's-as-a-web" idea is just brilliant - and fits neatly with the other "shapes" analogies that Meaghan and Vince discussed below. The cherry on top is the beautiful way this web aligns with the "history is not a straight line" idea that many of us consider when we're teaching and that you may have noticed on many of the course resources.

Wow! What amazing responses. There's so much to learn from everyone participating in this conversation. Since I was not able to participate in the first week conversation, my respnose will cover both weeks As someone who experienced much of what Wineburg discussed there were so many memories brought up as I read the first part. Growing up in a very small town my high school history classes consisted of a series of dates put on the board and we had to identify what happened that year. There was no connection or relevance, just know the year and event. Once I snuck in and changed dates before class and nobody noticed! 

I started teaching about the time History Alive came out and was still around for TAH. Both were great resources, but still did not make history relevant to students. It's a challenge to test students on historical knowledge. Unless history is made relevant to today's world, history is viewed by students as a bunch of facts and they tune it out. 

It's fine to have a few MCQs on a test, but students need to be provided with multiple ways to show their knowledge, and more importantly, students need to show how it's relevant. We have to determine what it is we want students to know, and provide multiple ways for students to demonstrate their understanding. A Multiple Choice test will always have some bias and in today's world, there would be littlle agreement as to what should be included on a test (and in some cases, the correct answer may be debated). 

I always thought critical thinking and content more like railroad tracks. You need both sides to keep the train going. You need to provide students with basic content (and the skills to find that information), then balance it with qurestions to help them put the puzzle together. We should always be asking "where does this event fit into the big picture?"  Rather than a pyramid, learning should be a path that continuously expands as we learn. I totally agree with Erik that to truly assess student understanding, multiple opportunities should be provided for students to demonstrate their knowledge, and it can be fun. Getting students involved and asking questions is a different approach to teaching, but so valuable to helping them to develop their critical thinking. It's also much more fun.

Why Learn History // Week Three Questions  

In Chapter 7 "Why Google Can't Save Us" Wineburg dives deep into the internet's ability to deeply confuse expert and novice historians (and everyone else!). He describes several case studies that highlight how difficult it can be to assess information that we come across online.   

• As more students are conducting research online, how are you managing the information they are exposed to?   
• Do you teach digital literacy?   
• How do you practice online reasoning or claim testing? How do you practice it with your students?   
• What routines or activities have made the biggest impact to negotiating the power of the internet in your classroom?  

Post your response to the questions in the comments below as we complete our final week of the Book Club. Be sure to join us for Sam Wineburg’s Keynote Address on August 4 at 1:00 PM PDT!