27 April 2014

Bloom's Taxonomy - Still Relevant or Just Redundant?

Geriatric Guidance

It is amazing to me how pervasive Bloom's Taxonomy (1956) remains, despite its geriatric credentials. In particular advocates of TEL (Technology Enhanced Learning) are often the most ecstatic about it, keen to categorise many of the most ubiquitous digital tools under it's reassuring tiers – well the tiers of its ‘cognitive domain’ anyway, something that is very well critiqued by Tom Woodward over at this post on his blog.

This may come as a surprise to many, but despite its 'common sensibility' Bloom’s Taxonomy was and is purely theoretical, without basis in cognitive research (Ritchhart et al, 2011).

The idea that thinking is sequential or hierarchical is highly questionable (Marzano, 2000), but nevertheless Bloom's categories capture types of mental activity that are embraced (rightly or wrongly) by many practitioners, and are therefore, it could be argued, useful as a starting point for thinking about thinking.

Anderson and Krathwohl’s revisions (2001), emphasise the importance of creativity, although understanding was still undervalued.

Understanding Understanding

Understanding is a very deep, complex endeavour, and not in any way a lower-order skill as the revised taxonomy implies (Blythe & Associates, 1998; EO Keene, 2008; Wiggins & McTighe, 1998).

Cognitive research indicates that understanding is not a precursor to application, analysis, evaluating, and creating but a result of it (Wiske, 1997). Thomas and Seely Brown (2009) emphasise this idea, seeing ‘learning as reflecting, learning as making, and learning as becoming’ with creative play and improvisation as essential experiences – the kinds of experiences of ‘messing about, and geeking out’ described by Ito et al (2008). Wagner (2012) considers the unique motivation generated by creating as ‘the source of all good learning’, concluding that intrinsic motivation is fuelled by playing (experimenting), purpose (wanting to make a difference), and passion (devoting yourself to something you find deeply meaningful). Creating is not a single direct act but a compilation of activities and associated thinking. Decisions are made and problems are solved as part of this process. Ideas are tested, results analysed, prior learning brought to bear, and ideas synthesised.

With computers, the act of creating has never been more accessible – almost anything is potentially ‘buildable’ on a computer, and if it’s buildable, it becomes thinkable, discussable, and ultimately, learnable (TEL Report, 2012). Robinson (2009) makes the point that

"digital technologies are now putting in the hands of millions of people everywhere, unprecedented tools for creativity and sound, in design, in sciences and in the arts (p 205).” 

Creativity is something that digital technologies excel at facilitating - people learn best when they are making things, and sharing what they’ve made with each other. Making something produces something to talk about, reflect upon, and ultimately learn with. Making is an effective way of learning – or as Luckin et al in the Nesta report (2012) neatly summarise, “mending, mashing, and making with digital tools (p 59)”, using suitable personal devices and flexible web tools to achieve clearly articulated goals.

Considering the high regard Bloom’s retains in the estimation of many educators, it could be argued that rather than rejecting it; (say in favour of simpler and more academically robust paradigms like deep and surface learning) that the process of learning in the 21st Century be better represented by ‘flipping’ Bloom’s (Shelley Wright); one that views learning as the process of joining a community of practice reverses this pattern and allows students to engage in “learning to be” (Brown & Adler, 2008) even as they are mastering the content of a discipline. This encourages the practice of ‘productive inquiry’ (Dewey, 1944) the process of seeking knowledge only as and when it is needed, in order to carry out a particular task.

Flipping Bloom’s [Revised] Taxonomy (Shelley Wright)

Transformative Teaching and Transformative Tools

The point is, education is (or at least, should be) evolving –  new ways of describing learning are just another part of this ancient process. From flint and stone, to chalk and board, to pen and paper, to screens and cursors – excellent, experienced teachers have always been effective at utilising the most appropriate tools they have access to, to transform teaching and learning. Yes, sure, a piece of chalk and a black board can be transformative in the grip of a great teacher—but to cling to those tools when more powerful tools exist is a wasted opportunity, like walking when you can fly. Teachers need to move away from the traditional methods of teaching and utilise a wider variety of techniques, the best tools, digital tools, for their students to build their own understanding through real world applications and interactions with their peers.

“To be productive contributors to society in our 21st century, you need to be able to quickly learn the core content of a field of knowledge while also mastering a broad portfolio of essentials in learning, innovation, technology, and career skills needed for work and life.” (Trilling & Fadel, 2009, p 16)

Teachers have always needed to prepare students to be creative and innovative within professions that do not yet exist, for products that have not yet been invented, but the sheer breath of these experiences are growing exponentially. Clinging to obsolete paradigms makes no sense in a century that offers so much more than we've ever had access to before.

So next time you see another set of digital tools organised around the redundant, discredited, Bloom's hierarchy, think before you link. Aren't there better ways to structure our thinking? I think so.

18 April 2014

Digital Literacy 'Coaches' – What Do We Do?

An existentialist consideration of the role of a 'tech integrator'*.

I'm a 'Digital Literacy Coach' (DLC), a 'pedagogical technologist' (Woo, 2012) would probably be a more accurate description; that is a pedagogical coach who specialises in digital technologies. We're a rare, but fast growing breed in any TELE (technology enhanced learning environment) where the tech in question is digital, ie screens, because let's face it, all teaching environments are enhanced by some kind of technology even if it's just paper and pen/cil.

I commonly find myself on the receiving end of a blank faces; uncomprehending, incredulous, somewhat vacuous expression when I give an answer like this. Especially if the person in question is a student, or a parent. Something like,

You're a ... pedagogicawhat?
"A what?" "so, ... what do you do?"

So, 4 years of research, and 1 Master's degree later, here it is. My answer.

Studies (McGarr & McDonagh, 2013) indicate that for many schools, the provision of even one person who has this kind of role is rare. Unfortunately, it is more common to commit vast amounts of expenditure on ICTs, while skimping on financing the expertise that would enable teachers to make effective use of them. If a choice has to be made, it would be better to purchase less equipment and instead utilise the released funds to employ at least one skilled facilitator, a DLC. Without this kind of investment, expensive hardware will most likely languish in cupboards (Nesta report, 2012).

Providing technical skills training to teachers in the use of technology is not enough (Ciampa & Gallagher, 2013) and teaching skills in isolation does little to help teachers develop knowledge about: how to use technology to teach content in differentiated ways according to students' learning needs (TPK); how technology can be used to support the learning of specific curriculum content (TCK); or how to help students meet particular curriculum content standards while using technologies appropriately (TPACK) in their learning (Harris et al 2009; Mishra & Koehler, 2006); this is where having a dedicated ‘coach’ is essential.

Teachers need professional development in the pedagogical application of skills to improve teaching and learning (Carlson and Gadio, 2002). One of the most effective ways to help teachers take advantage of, and integrate technology is to provide ‘situated’ professional development through the provision of dedicated technology facilitators. These are known by many titles, eg DLCs, ICT Coordinators, Tech Integrators; all of which place far too much emphasis on the digital-technological for my liking. I think it is perhaps better to described the DLC role as that of a pedagogical coach, but one who has a profound understanding of the affordances of digital technologies. The emphasis being, first and foremost, on the pedagogical aspect of the role, the technology supports pedagogy - not the other way round. This is why, despite the multiplicity of syllables, I feel the best description of this role is that of a ‘Pedagogical Technologist’ (Woo, 2012).

These are dedicated teachers who support individualised (Hixon & Buckenmeyer, 2009) authentic technology integration; mentoring; 'just-in-time' support that addresses teachers' needs; individualised instruction; observation of technology integration in practice (or what I prefer to call FOCUS lessons), and self-directed learning (Jacobsen 2001; 2002). This approach goes beyond skill centred strategies (teaching the use of tools) and emphasises the importance of helping teachers develop and use technology to teach curriculum content using specific pedagogical approaches that support successful technology-enhanced teaching and learning (Mishra & Koehler, 2006).

Perhaps another question we should ask is, what happens if you NOT have a DLC? Fullan and Donnelly answer this question nicely:

"Study after study has concluded that the impact of digital technology has been stifled when there is no emphasis on the pedagogy of the application of technology as used in the classroom. this phenomenon has been recently documented by steven Higgins et al. in a large meta–analytical study on digital learning. When teachers are not taught how to use an innovation, how to adapt to the model, and provided with on–going support, they revert to their traditional behaviours and practices. And, if professional development is stacked at initial launch, it risks neglecting the need for continuous reinforcement and upgrading." (p19)

So DLCs emphasise pedagogical application of technology. And how do DLCs do this? Well, they... 

Synthesise, problem solve, filter... 

Key to this role is synthesis. A DLC must consider the curricular goals, the talents and experiences of the team they are working with, the potential connections (support, reinforcement, or duplication) of related areas and skills, and how best to determine priorities. Tsai & Chai (2012) describe this problem solving capacity in terms of ‘design thinking’, where the ability to “re-organise or create learning materials and activities” and adapt these accordingly (ibid, p 1058) is seen as necessary to overcome a ‘third-order’ barrier of a lack of ‘design thinking’.  The DLC also reviews recent practice and tries to anticipate how best to implement future projects. As they begin to develop new visions, communicate them to colleagues, and contemplate how to realise these innovations, they enter the realms of strategic leadership and creativity within the profession (Gardner, 2006). Synthesising the current state of technological knowledge, incorporating new findings, and delineating new dilemmas are critical to the work of any DLC who wishes to remain current and relevant.

This role as filter is particularly important given the phenomenal proliferation of digital tools—on a literally daily basis, more tools with funky and not so funky names emerge into a market place already filled to overflowing with a veritable cornucopia of competitors. The DLC is all that stands between the teacher and a tsunami wave of digital applications, utilities and all sorts of 'Apps' boasting their pixelated promises to 'save you time' etc.  Neither can these just be ignored, as, not unlike the prospectors of old, sometimes lying in the sludge of similarity is the odd golden nugget of greatness. Yes, Apps like DoodleCast Pro, I'm looking at you. The DLC is the prospector who wades through the mediocre with filters of failure, seeking to route out all except the most worthy, which can then be brought back triumphantly and with considerable excitement to a, maybe not so interested team of teachers. Yet.

A ‘low power distance’ (Hofstede et al, 1991) is a crucial aspect of these roles, within a loose, decentralised hierarchy, where teachers are colleagues, not subordinates. A high degree of technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK) (Koehler & Mishra, 2009) is at the heart of this role—an understanding of how teaching and learning can change, when particular technologies [tools] are used effectively. This includes knowing the ‘pedagogical affordances and constraints’ of a range of technological tools as they relate to various disciplines with “developmentally appropriate pedagogical designs and strategies (ibid).”

Design (interventions)

Interventions significantly influenced by the need to use, "small wins to ignite joy, engagement and creativity at work (Amabile & Kramer, 2011).” Helping teachers making even small progress in meaningful work is a powerful stimulant to inspiring them to want to do more. If people are involved in meaningful work, and if they feel capable, and if they are helped to make even small progress, they become more motivated and ready for the next challenge (Fullan, 2013).

All interventions should incorporate three essential elements (Rodríguez et al, 2011) they should be first and foremost pedagogically centred, collaboratively designed, and expected to result in transference.

A focus on pedagogy has been shown to be effective in ‘freeing’ the practitioner from the myth that they need to be the ‘tech expert’ in the room, instead focusing on their classroom management skills, seeing technical “pitfalls as teachable moments” (Steve, 2011, p 16). This pedagogic model requires the definition and design of tasks for teachers and students, supported by ICTs. The interventions are how the pedagogic model is adopted, leading towards “autonomous implementation” (Rodríguez et al, 2011, p 84).  They are composed of planned activities, such as training sessions for teachers, practical experiences, and classroom observations (Rodríguez et al, 2010). In addition to this, during the intervention, the DLC continually monitors and evaluates progress in order to assess the suitability and efficacy of implementation and to determine the extent to which the pedagogical model is actually being adopted (Wagner et al, 2005). This is expected to lead to arguably the purpose of the entire initiative - transference, teachers who have adopted these practices to the point where they are intrinsic and habitual, where the vast majority teachers effectively and faithfully “carry out the intervention” (Rodríguez 2008).


None of these attributes count for anything unless the ‘coach’ or ‘facilitator’ is a “pedagogical leader and champion” (McGarr & McDonagh, 2013)—a “charismatic individual who throws his or her weight behind an innovation, thus over-coming indifference or resistance... (Stuart et al, 2009, p 734).” These champions are “the individuals who emerge to take creative ideas […] and bring them to life” who “actively and enthusiastically promote the innovation, building support, overcoming resistance, and ensuring that the innovation is implemented (Howell & Higgins, 1990, p 40).” Confidence, persistence, energy and risk-taking are key characteristics (ibid). Champions can be distinguished from non-champions because they can communicate a clear vision, display enthusiasm, demonstrate commitment and involve others in supporting innovation (ibid). Champions are also an important part of the innovation process in an organisation (ibid; Rogers, 2003), and are “especially important in the implementation of new technology (p 3).” Loucks & Zacchei (1983) describe these facilitators as “cheerleaders” (p 29); building commitment early and maintaining it through constant encouragement; as ‘linkers’, bringing in outside expertise and ideas—linking resources and expertise; and trouble-shooters, helping teachers solve problems.

But for how long? Role obsolescence

The long-term viability of the role of the DLC needs to be considered. This marks my fourth year, and it is important to be wary of allowing the success of a TEL initiative to be dependent on one person’s expertise and determination to succeed. Certainly, in the earliest phase of implementation of a TEL model the need for a full time DLC is necessary, but the efficacy of this initiative will only truly be realised when, in effect, every teacher is a ‘pedagogical champion’, effectively rendering the role of the DLC obsolete. Implementation of change takes at least two years (Fullan, 1991), even then, with an infrastructure in place, it takes several years of effort before teachers start using ICT intensively in preparing and conducting their teaching activities (Feldman et al, 1999; Hakkarainen et al, 2003); only then can we consider that change has really become implemented, that it has ‘gone viral’, that there has been transference.

If we're doing our jobs properly, surely we should be aiming for obsolescence, to coach every teacher and student into a similar sense of tech capacity and familiarity as we have, to effectively make each one a 'mini me'—after all what originally qualified the teacher who became a DLC for this role, other than a profound sense of excitement about the potential of digital technologies to amplify and transform learning and teaching. 

By expanding the role of all of teachers who we have discovered, or successfully enabled, or even 'converted' to that of a ‘tech mentor’ or tech enthusiast' we can distribute this kind of coaching more effectively, thinner but wider. These teachers can work closely with a DLC to pilot pedagogically focused use of ICTs in innovative ways. If successful, these are shared with the team with the prospect of grade wide adoption and development. 

More is more

These roles, these 'tech mentors and enthusiasts' could 'go viral', they could conceivably evolve into many part-time DLCs at each grade level, in every department, lots of 'mini DLCs' everywhere, the more there are, the less 'non-contact' time they would need, until … well, until every teacher, every student is, in effect, a digital literacy coach. Reaching this utopian ideal would be the realisation of  “autonomous implementation”, the transference, described by Rodríguez et al, (2011; 2008). Where teachers have adopted these practices to the point where they are "intrinsic and habitual".

This state would not be sustainable without an inter-disciplinary, cross phase, school-wide network of DLCs could continue, develop and facilitate professional learning through a collaborative, peer-mentoring programme (Glazer et al, 2009). One situated in the practice of a teacher, familiar with the curricular content, and the everyday stresses and strains of classroom practice that a full time DLC is not, no matter how sympathetic they might be.

Of course that begs the question of who would/could co-ordinate, guide, support this network of pedagogical technologist, who would coach the coaches? Probably someone who already has a decade or two or more of experience with pedagogical technology, hmm, looks we're going to need a new name.

So, obsolescence? Bring it on. I look forward it.

*Or Digital Literacy Coach, ICT Coordinator, Technology Coordinator, Technology Facilitator, Pedagogical Technologist ... there are more... 


Amabile T and Kramer S (2011). The progress principle: using small wins to ignite joy, engagement and creativity at work. Boston: Harvard business review press.

Carlson S and Gadio C T (2002). Teacher professional development in the use of technology. Technologies for Education, 118-132.

Ciampa K and Gallagher T L (2013). Professional learning to support elementary teachers’ use of the iPod Touch in the classroom, Professional Development in Education, DOI:10.1080/19415257.2012.749802

Fullan M (2013). Stratosphere: integrating technology, pedagogy, and change knowledge. Don Mills, Ont.: Pearson.

Fullan M & Donnelly K (2013). Alive in the swamp, assessing digital innovations in education. London: Nesta. Available online: www. nesta. org. uk/library/documents/Alive_in_the_Swamp. pdf.

Gardner H (2006). Five Minds For The Future. Harvard Business Press.

Harris J, Mishra P, and Koehler M. (2009). Teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 393-416.

Hixon E and Buckenmeyer J (2009). Revisiting technology integration in schools: Implications for professional development. Computers in the Schools, 26(2), 130-146.

Hofstede G, Hofstede G J, and Minkov M (1991). Cultures and organizations. London: McGraw-Hill.

Jacobsen D M (2001). Building different bridges: technology integration, engaged student learning, and new approaches to professional development. Paper presented at the 82nd Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, 10 April, Seattle, WA.

Jacobsen D M (2002). Building different bridges two: a case study of transformative professional development for student learning with technology. Paper presented at the 83rd Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, 1 April, New Orleans, LA.

Koehler M J and Mishra P (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.

Luckin R, Bligh B, Manches A, Ainsworth S, Crook C and Noss R (November 2012). Decoding Learning: The Proof, Promise and Potential of digital education. Online. Retrieved 18 November, 2012, from http://www.nesta.org.uk/library/documents/DecodingLearningReport.pdf 

McGarr O and McDonagh A (2013). Examining the role of the ICT coordinator in Irish post-primary schools, Technology, Pedagogy and Education, DOI:10.1080/1475939X.2012.755132

Mishra P and Koehler M J (2006). ‘Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge’, Teachers College Record 108 (6) pp. 1017– 1054.

Rodríguez P, Nussbaum M, and Dombrovskaia L (2011). Evolutionary development: a model for the design, implementation, and evaluation of ICT for education programmes. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(2), 81-98.

Steve V (2011). Young Canadians in a Wired World – Phase III: Teachers’ Perspectives (Ottawa: Media Awareness Network, 1)

Tsai C C, & Chai C S (2012). The “third”-order barrier for technology-integration instruction: Implications for teacher education. Building the ICT capacity of the next generation of teachers in Asia. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(6), 1057-1060. 

Wagner D A, Day B, James T, Kozma R B, Miller J and Unwin T (2005). Monitoring and Evaluation of ICT in Education Projects: A Handbook for Developing Countries. ICT and Education Series. infoDev/World Bank, Washington, DC. 

Woo D J (2012, May). No Lone Rangers: Pedagogical Technologists’ Mutualistic Relationships in Schools. In E-Learning in a changing landscape of emerging technologies and pedagogies.

09 April 2014

Transforming Assessment for/and/of Learning

Stop Marking and Start Giving Feedback

Here's a magnificent example of how assessment can be transformed by the effective use of digital technologies.

Replace, Amplify or Transform - RAT

It is so easy for even powerful applications of ICT to be little more than replacement for traditional tools and methods, maybe amplified—by that I mean, maybe there are benefits in terms of amplification, like speed, or efficacy, maybe the activity is more motivating, maybe it uses less paper, but is it really changing learning; or the kinds of teaching you can do?

If not, then it's not transformative, and it's not what I am aiming to see in the classrooms of the teachers I 'coach'.

So, one of our Grade 5 teachers is transforming formative assessment, and he's doing it by cleverly combining two powerful tools, in a synergetic way that amplifies the potential and possibilities of both, here using Google Doc comments and QuickTime screen recording.

Now he's been using screen recording for some time to give feedback to his students, and then he started experimenting with getting his students to use the same method to create a 'learning talk' to explain the rational behind their writing choices for him, great, but the problem with that is you now have 22 x 2-3 minute videos to 'mark' and the problem with video compared to text, is you can really 'skim' it, and annotating it? Not easy, certainly not as easy as paper.

In short video is great for pushing content to kids, but it sucks for pulling content from kids.

Unless… you get the kids to use each other as resources, what I call P2P (peer to peer), what Dylan William calls 'Students as resources for one another'.

So, have a look at this video, by an 'ordinary' student, on an 'ordinary' day in an 'ordinary' classroom at UWCSEA, but one who is transforming learning of her peers.


It's worth pointing out exactly why this is transformative, because it leverages 4 out of the 5 unique affordances of ICTs, that I call 'SAMMS'; this work is:

Situated - This student can start the work at school, continue at home, and seamlessly return to at school no problem, any space, any place, any time, that suits her.

Multimodal - Text and speech = win win.

Mutable - the workload implications of acting on feedback are minimised compared to paper. Feedback annotation on paper would effectively require the student to start again and rewrite the entire thing from scratch - the my ability of the screen mean edits and revisions can be made quickly and simply, and supported by supportive proof-reading tools.

Social - This document has effectively become a micro-community, two students and one teacher, but it's not one way. Following the feedback, any of the 3 parties involved can pitch in with comments to clarify, redirect, reinforce, resolve… Invite others to join in? the possibilities are endless!