If you mention the word ‘Blooms’ to any teacher, chances are they will know exactly what you are talking about. Blooms taxonomy was a tool created to assist the development of learning and assessment opportunities for students that provided the greatest cognitive processing skills (Bloom, Krathwohl & Masia, 1964). Blooms provided a levelling tool against which teachers could determine the complexity of their tasks and adjust accordingly to ensure that they were providing those higher order and complex opportunities to students (Killen, 2005). While Blooms is synonymous guiding teachers with facilitating different knowledge processes, how much thought do we give to the technology that is included in these tasks. Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) propose that different technologies may facilitate certain types of knowledge representation.

Using this framework provided by Anderson and Krathwohl (2001), I have mapped a unit previous created for Grade 5 Biological Science – Animal Adaptations. This unit included activities and ideas from Primary Connections and was closely aligned to the Australian Curriculum Standards.

Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) Framework:

Looking back at how technology was used in this unit of work, I do not feel that it was always well aligned with knowledge progression or outcomes I was wanting the students to demonstrate and engage in. The areas of deeper and higher learning such as evaluating and problem solving were definitely not hit and these are areas that in future when selecting technologies to support my learning aims, I am more aware of.

It is important that teachers understand how the vast variety of technologies and tools support knowledge representation and sharing and this framework would be a great tool to apply to current units to determine the selection of technology to support cognition (Bower, 2017).

References

Bloom, B. S., Krathwohl, D. R. and Masia, B. B. (1964) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. The classification of educational goals. Handbook 2: Affective Domain Boston David McKay Company, Inc

Bower, M. (2017). Design of technology-enhanced learning – Integrating research and practice. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing Group

Killen, R. (2005). Programming and Assessment for Quality Teaching and Learning. Thomson Social Science Press, Southbank Victoria. 

Ritchhart, R., Church, M., & Morrison, K. (2011). Making Thinking Visible: How to Promote Engagement, Understanding, and Independence for All Learners. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

The use of LEGO robotics equipment in educational settings has been around for a number of years, long before the debate regarding pedagogical underpinnings. LEGO Education launched the original Mindstorms in 1998 providing a hands-on approach to learning for many students.

McIntyre (2012) explains how many students may have played with LEGO when they were younger, using their creative and critical thinking skills to design, create and test multiple different builds and structure strengths. LEGO robotics lends itself to a constructivist approach to learning, encouraging students to explore new possibilities, test these and then redesign as needed (Leonard et al., 2016). This active learning approach includes the use of hands on and authentic activities that include experimental learning, collaborative and context-based learning (Keengwe & Georgina, 2013). Constructivism is firmly grounded in the believe that the most effective learning comes out of the active construction of all types of things (Mayes & de Freitas, 2007).

Robotics encourages the use of collaborative learning whilst tackling tasks and this can be both rewarding and problematic for students (Leonard et al., 2016). Through my own teaching with LEGO robotics equipment I have found the need to ensure that my students are placed into allocated groups. In this way I have been able to ensure that every student gets to engage with the technology as well as contribute to the task. This predetermined grouping assists to scaffold and support the learning and reduce any negative associations that students may form towards using the technology based on their peer interactions (Leonard et al., 2016).

Thus, ultimately again the teacher and pedagogy are brought to the fore, outweighing the technological tool. Without a solid understanding of the pedagogical underpinnings of LEGO robotics and the ability to create meaningful and real-world linked learning sequences, the use of LEGO robotics would not have the same impact (Gura, 2012).