Assessment 1
Running Head: Assessment for education
Assessment for Education
A Comparison of Richard Stiggins and Bloom’s Taxonomy
Lesley University
Midterm Project
Abstract
Richard Stiggins and Benjamin Bloom seem to agree that knowledge is the foundation for reasoning. Richard Stiggins approach is all areas of reasoning depend on one another. He further believes that in order to assess properly a blueprint must be formed focusing on different area of reasoning. The blueprint is then used to develop the assessment tool, which will in turn provide a guide for unit and lesson development. Benjamin Bloom believes in a hierarchical system with knowledge as the base and evaluation at the peek of reasoning and assessment. Each level contains learning goals and all prior reasoning goals.
As an educator, assessment is a major part of what we do. It is important to examine why, how, and when we assess our students. Assessment should be an accurate calculation of a students understanding and ability. We can no longer focus on the basic level of knowledge when assessing students. In order to reach a firmer understanding of reasoning, and how it applies to an educators’ test preparation, unit design, and assessment, I focused on Richard Stiggins and Benjamin Bloom’s philosophies.
Stiggins’ approach to reasoning is that all learners start out with content knowledge (Stiggins, 2005). He believes that “reasoning patterns are rarely used independently of one another” (Stiggins, 2005, p. 48). Therefore, the student must have a working understanding of each reasoning skill and “we must prepare our students to be lifelong assessors of the quality of their own reasoning” (Stiggins, 2005, p. 48). The levels of reasoning according to Stiggins are analytical, synthesizing, comparative, classifying, induction and deduction, and evaluative.
Analytical reasoning is to take a closer look at a situation and break it down into the basic elements of how something works or fits together (Stiggins, 2005). An example of this in my teaching is an addition algorithm used with Everyday Math. The students use place value, number sense, and simple addition in order to add two digit addition problems. They have to understand place value of the tens and ones using base ten blocks. They then need to be able to understand what parts should be added, and finally work the addition portion of the problem.
The next area of reasoning is synthesizing. Synthesis is taking the elements of two or more areas and combining to make a whole. In other words the “whole is more than the sum of its parts” (Stiggins, 2005, p. 51). I see this in my classroom at work in many ways. Incorporating this reasoning is not only a time saving skill for the instructor, it allows the student to have a better understanding of the parts and apply them. An area that I use synthesis is in writing. The students write math stories that help them understand the parts of a math problem, but require them to use capitalization, choice of ending punctuation, and complete sentence writing.
Comparative reasoning comes next. Comparative reasoning is sampling, comparing, and contrasting. The student is to infer how items or elements are similar or different. The use of a Venn Diagram is a wonderful example and an excellent assessment tool. I have had students listen to Cinderella and then the Algonquin version called Rough-Face Girl. We discuss that they are both fairytales and what the key elements of a fairytale are. They then complete a Venn diagram comparing the two stories.
From comparative reasoning we move on to classifying. Classifying reasoning is categorizing prior knowledge into categories or attributes (Stiggins, 2005). In the area of science I see this being used quite often. In my own area of teaching I have taught students the key characteristics of the animal groups, such as, what makes a mammal a mammal and a bird a bird. The students then have to take picture cards of a variety of animals and categorize which animal group the animal belongs to. We also use it in social studies when categorizing the Native American tribes by their characteristics.
Subsequently we have inductive and deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is “when we can infer principles, draw conclusions, or glean generalizations from accumulated evidence,” and deductive reasoning is “when we apply a general rule or principle to find the solution to a problem (Stiggins, 2005, p. 51 – 52). An example of inductive reasoning in my class would be after studying plant function and parts; they are able to draw conclusions about why a plant may not grow. Deductive reasoning is used when students are asked to determine the genre of a piece of work after reading a variety of materials and understanding the different types of genre.
The last type of reasoning is evaluative. Evaluative reasoning is when we use criteria, or a set of standards to make a decision or judgment on the value or appropriateness of something (Stiggins, 2005). I have used evaluative reasoning with students by asking them to evaluate their writing, math problems, and projects presented to the class by their peers. One example of evaluative reasoning that I am planning to use as an assessment tool is allowing the students to decide which plant should be next to then sun. After studying the planets and doing research about size, location, and make up of the planets, students are to determine which one should have the honor of being first. The students then present their cases and vote. This completes the areas of reasoning by Stiggins. Now we will focus on Benjamin Bloom’s taxonomy.
Bloom’s taxonomy has “six hierarchical and cumulative levels of testing to measure different levels of student subject knowledge” (Manton, 2004). The levels of reasoning and assessment are knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. The first level of reasoning is knowledge which is “a prerequisite for all operations to follow” (Manton, 2004). As one climbs the ladder of reason they build on the prior levels.
There are some similarities between Stiggins and Bloom. They both include analysis, synthesis, and evaluation as an area of reasoning. Stiggins’ classifying reasoning is similar to Bloom’s comprehension level. Also, Stiggins’ induction and deduction are comparable to Bloom’s application level. The major difference between the two is that Bloom’s taxonomy is a hierarchal level and Stiggins’ is a relational view. I liked the approach that Stiggins takes because he uses backward design. The end goal is determined before focusing on starting a lesson or unit.
Reference
Lamb, A. (2001). Critical and creative thinking – Bloom’s Taxonomy. Retrieved
December 8, 2005. from http://eduscapes.com/tap/topic69.htm
Manton, E., Turner, C., & English, D. (Summer 2004). Testing the level of student
knowledge. Education, Vol. 124, Iss. 4, 682 – 688. Retrieved December 3, 2005,
from ProQuest database.
Soto, M. (No Date). Bloom’s Taxonomy. Retrieved December 8, 2005 from
http://www.officeport.com/edu/blooms.htm
Stiggins, R. (2005). Student-involved assessment for learning. New Jersey: Pearson
Prentice Hall
Anne Wooten