This paper (17 page PDF) is valuable as a discussion of the evolution of Bloom's taxonomy, particularly in the light of generative AI, but I don't think a survey of eight people, some of whom only occasionally use AI, is a substantive basis for a remapping of the elements. Indeed, it makes me rethink whether breaking down the various aspects of learning into a taxonomy like this is useful. I mean, why include 'collaboration' in the affective domain but not 'cooperation'? Why do we consider 'ethics' to be a type of learning but not 'metaethics'. Really, what we're working with (if we want to approach it this way) is the combination of all possible verb-(adverb)-object combinations, and deciding some are important ('simplify concepts') and some are not ('play baseball'). But the importance of any of them depends so much on individual and context it doesn't really matter what the broad 'taxonomy' is.
Today: Total: [Direct link] [Share]
