Assumptions about blooms and critical thinking

Bloom's Taxonomy Assumptions Paradigmatic Assumption A S S U M P T I O N S A B O U T B L O O M ' S A N D C R I T I C A L T H I N K I N G Prescriptive Assumptions Causal Assumption Critical Thinking A paradigmatic assumption I hold is that group discussions are the best place for critical thinking to happen in the elementary classroom. Some ideas I have learned that have led to this assumption are that learning out loud is important for younger grades and allows them to better explain their understanding. In fact, many curriculums, like the curriculum we use at my school, Wit & Wisdom, integrate large group discussions as a key part of the learning process for the younger students. From my experience, a large amount of time is spent where students are listening to a story, questions are being asked and answered as a whole, writing is brainstormed together, and students act out their understanding. I personally feel that by working as a whole group for a large part of my lessons I can keep my students engaged, allow them a better opportunity to express themselves on a higher level of thinking and model how to think critically. I believe my assumption is valid because learning in the younger years has been shown to include many opportunities for verbal thinking (Renatovna & Renatovna, 2020). According to the Module 1 Video “Conceptualizing Critical Thinking”, critical thinkers view situations from different perspectives, filter information and evaluate evidence, and establish independent thought, therefore allowing students to learn through group discussions gives them the opportunity to “listen to the opinions of others” and “express their opinion” (Renatovna & Renatovna) - improving their critical thinking skills. Another important element of group discussions are questions - learning to ask them and answer them. This relates to critical thinking because it is with questions that we can deepen our understanding and “correct, modify, and update” (Finn, 2019) our knowledge. “Questions are an important element of critical thinking” (Renatovna & Renatovna) but it is not one that comes easily to younger students and it is stressed that students need to be taught to use this method to form critical thinking (Renatovna & Renatovna) and group discussions allow for modeling and practicing of these methods. These assumptions are appropriate when considering how to conduct large and small group lessons, evaluate reading comprehension, and prompt thinking in these young students. I have applied my knowledge that “collaborative learning improves students’ critical thinking skills” (Arslan & Demirtas, 2016) in the ways in which I lead discussions during reading blocks, talk about making and answering questions together, conduct small group lessons with mostly verbal interactions, and model my own thinking out loud for my students. I have seen better engagement, the sharing of understanding, and the ways in which my students have learned from each other when I taught with this assumption about developing my students’ critical thinking skills. There are many prescriptive assumptions that I have found to find influence my teaching perspective. One assumption is that teachers should be focused on the levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy when analyzing students. This is one that I have come to think about because I remember spending much class time in undergrad learning about the levels of Bloom and using them to write learning objectives. Bloom’s Taxonomy is a widely known educational hierarchy of knowledge and it is clearly important. I do know that Bloom’s helps me scaffold learning in the classroom and I have implemented these levels before - for example, I have worked with students organize their ideas (analyze level of Bloom's) before they constructed their own essay (create level of Bloom's). I’ve come to see this as a true assumption because “Bloom’s is hierarchical, meaning that learning at the higher levels is dependent on having attained prerequisite knowledge and skills at lower levels. (Shabatura, 2022)” and the use of Bloom’s should help me ensure the success of my students reaching those higher levels. It is explained that successful implementation of Bloom’s is when the teacher builds “up the Bloom’s taxonomy to help your students reach mastery of the course level outcomes” (Shabatura). And when I take the time to analyze my assumption, I can validate it because, in essence, I hold the same goal as Bloom as described in the Module 1 video “Conceptualizing Critical Thinking: “to promote more complex thinking in education by focusing on analysis and evaluation instead of memorizing facts”. Since this goal is aligned with my own of wanting to have my students be challenged in their thinking and engage them beyond the regurgitation of facts, I can see that there is truth in my assumption that teachers should focus on Bloom’s to analyze student work. This assumption is appropriate in the context of writing objectives for the classroom, determining a way to measure student progress, and adding scaffolds to learning in the classroom. In my own classroom, I have applied this understanding of the importance of Bloom’s in the way I try to “work backward”, first determining the learning goal for my students and then creating a lesson plan to help them work towards this goal. I have also applied my knowledge by using Bloom’s levels to help assess where my students are currently at and adjusting to a higher level to challenge students, or a lower level to help build the students’ confidence and knowledge. By believing I should keep Bloom’s in mind when checking student growth, I have been better able to create lessons that engage students, challenge their thinking, and support their growth. A similar prescriptive assumption I hold is teachers should be using objectives that include keywords related to Bloom’s Taxonomy to ensure critical thinking. I came to this assumption based on the importance of higher-order thinking questions that was instilled into me in undergrad. In my undergrad classes, I was shown verb tables that outlined ways to support critical thinking through the outcomes we outlined for our lessons. I also understand the importance of academic vocabulary supporting learning and critical thinking for the students and I think the verbiage of Bloom’s higher levels connect to this. The reason I feel like the assumption is valid is that this "table of verbs" have been created to help teachers “identify which action verbs align with each level in Bloom’s Taxonomy” (Shabatura, 2022), thus emphasizing their importance and how they are applicable in the classroom. And when you look into the “verb tables” (Shabatura) at the higher levels, with verbs like contrast, formulate, evaluate, and analyze (Shabatura), you can see how they connect to and support critical thinking. And by ensuring that “there is one measurable verb in each objective” (Shabatura) the teacher outlines, then you can use those verbs to remain focused on critical thinking. In addition, the validity of the importance of the verb in an outcome also relates to the idea that quality in learning outcomes is connected to outcomes that are measurable, which is largely influenced by quantifiable verbs (Shabatura). This assumption is appropriate in the context of creating learning outcomes to support student critical thinking in the classroom, in guiding group discussions, and in designing effective learning opportunities and projects in the classroom. I have applied my knowledge of utilizing the verb tables in my teaching career, using verbs and Bloom’s to ensure that I am giving my students opportunities at those higher levels, and analyzing my own learning objectives that I’ve written given the parameter talked about above. In paying attention to the verbs used in learning outcomes, I can more easily find ways to stretch student thinking and align learning outcomes to developing critical thinking skills. A third prescriptive assumption I’ve come to recognize is that social-emotional learning (SEL) should be an important part of younger students developing critical thinking skills. Spending time teaching first and third grades I have come to understand that emotions run high in elementary classrooms. I also understand the impacts of these emotions and how they can cause students to shut down or lose focus in the classroom. That being said, having emotional intelligence can help improve engagement, build relationships with peers, and add to the classroom atmosphere in positive ways. I truly believe this assumption is accurate because “Studies have indicated that social-emotional learning has an effect on students’ attitudes, behaviors, skills and performance” (Arslan & Demirtas, 2016). By taking the time to recognize the importance of emotions in a classroom you can improve your students' self-efficacy, give them a more positive perspective on school, and increase their motivation to learn (Arslan & Demirtas). And with these improved areas, a student can be more successful. By catering to the social-emotional needs of the students, you are allowing them to be better thinkers, as it helps them to not only be more confident in their own thinking but also better understand the perspective of others. Social-emotional intelligence and critical thinking have a reciprocal relationship as “individuals who are disposed to think critically also have higher social emotional learning skills (Arslan & Demirtas). This can only have a positive impact on students in the academic sense, but also in the emotional sense. These are both important to creating well-rounded scholars who are critical thinkers who feel compassion and caring (Finn, 2009) and can make higher- level connections. Based on the information outlining the reciprocal relationship between social- emotional learning and cognitive thinking validates to me that both are important and interconnected. These assumptions are appropriate in an elementary classroom and beyond. It is important when considering the outburst of a student, what SEL lessons to teach your students, and how one could approach a student who may seem disengaged. I implement this knowledge in my own classroom - I teach coping skills to help students work past emotions to not hinder their learning, I model good social connections and how that can improve my learning, I take the time to talk through emotions and demonstrate empathy, and I celebrate control of emotions. While I understand that emotions and empathy can sometimes cloud critical thinking skills, I believe that being in tune with emotions is not only beneficial for someone as a student and their ability to focus on and connect meaning to learning but to also foster relationships and empathy in the classroom to improve understanding, widen perspectives, and compare and contrast to the thoughts of others. A causal assumption that I believe in is if my student is going through trauma, then critical thinking is compromised. I learned that your brain is changed after going through trauma and the impacts can be long lasting. Trauma affects one physically, emotionally, and mentally - all of which make learning much harder. I understand that trauma invokes hurt, inconsistency, and lack of focus as a result. One's experiences and environment outside of the classroom, have an impact on their performance inside the classroom. I work at a trauma-informed school and have seen firsthand how each day can look different for my students. I know this assumption is accurate because it has been shown that “persons with higher critical thinking scores report fewer life events than those with lower scores” (Finn, 2019). This demonstrates that these “everyday experiences” (Finn) are brought into the classroom whether we or the child recognize it or not. Critical thinking is a skill that requires practice, focus, and support all of which can be more difficult for a student going through trauma. Student development in critical thinking is often gauged in a series of “pretest and posttest assessments” (Finn), which tend to not take into account the influences on learning outside of the classroom, like trauma, socioeconomic status, and familial support. All of these can compromise the “firm grounding” (Finn) needed to improve critical thinking skills or even set one back in the “building up” (Finn) process of developing critical thinking skills. CASEL (as cited in Arslan & Demirtas, 2016) explains the environment plays a huge role in the success of a student’s growth and one that is nurturing, secure, and structured helps students develop positively and minimizes their potential to engage in risky behavior. In knowing this, we can understand that an environment that is the opposite - lacks care, is dangerous, and unstructured - can have a negative impact on the development of a student. This is an important assumption in the context of analyzing the growth of a student, thinking of how to support your students, creating and building a good classroom atmosphere, and when you notice a student’s work seems unlike them. In my own classroom, I have had instances where a student is unable to talk in discussion because I find out, after talking with them, that they had an incident with a parent that morning before school. I take the time to check in with my students, I understand that each day can look different for the student and my day in the classroom may need to adjust, I like to look more at overall growth rather than individual assignment success, and I advocate for my students. When you are a teacher, it is important to consider the child as a whole and understand that trauma, and other factors, have daily impacts on these children. Adjusting your expectations can help build a classroom that is supportive of where a child is currently at and adapt to the notion that there is more to critical thinking skills than what is taught inside a classroom.