HASS

2.2

I found this weeks readings particularly insightful. And admittedly I have read and re-read to ensure I increase in my understanding and familiarity to fully grasp the content, and its application to the profession of teaching. Indeed, after re-reading a few times, I must acknowledge that I found the content particularly enlightening, as I believe it was able to ‘cut through’ to get at the core of thinking and sophistication in thinking in designing pedagogy, with the view that all our pedagogy has the end goal of being ‘high end’ teaching with high quality learning.  

Further, it was able to provide (me at least) with the language to apply when designing pedagogy within the context of my subject area, that is further practically enhanced by the SAMR model to ICT.

In summary Blooms taxonomy provides the ‘skeleton’ and the framework to apply when designing pedagogy, and indeed should act as a reference point and a measuring stick in all our classroom delivery as (pre-service) Teachers. Importantly, the application of Blooms Taxonomy is truly universal in nature, as opposed to subject area dependent.

There are multiple overlaying links between the content of Blooms Taxonomy and the goals and intent of the Australian curriculum and embedded within subject areas.

For instance, as students progress in their skills from lower end thinking to higher end thinking, students are being equipped to meet Goal 2 of the Australian Curriculum: “all young Australians become successful learners, confident and creative individuals and active and informed citizens” http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/StudentDiversity/Student-diversity-advice. By way of learning critical thinking skills beyond learning by rote and recall, or the simple remembering of facts; to its application, synthesis and evaluation; it is these skills that will be the ‘passport’ for young people to navigate an extremely complex world!

Importantly, when reviewing the ‘framework’ and ‘quality benchmark’ articulated in Blooms Taxonomy; shown as follows:

 ref: http://www.psia-nw.org/wp-content/uploads/Blooms_Taxonomy.jpg

And the review of the SAMR model and digital pedagogy as shown in the readings; as follows:

The immediate parallels are related to ‘low end’ and ‘high end’ delivery of pedagogy and the skills that are required as part of the learning. In this context, by way of application in approaching the ‘profession’ of teaching it is a profoundly critical to ensure my thinking is within this context.

When reflecting on my middle years curriculum area (Humanities and Social Sciences), the possibilities to teach content, that is anchored in a real world context and framed against the taxonomy and enriched by the SAMR model, will mean that learning (or perhaps, at least the pedagogy) will become of a high quality and meet expected standards as articulated n the Australian curriculum.

For instance, a content descriptor in civics and citizenship notes “Present evidence-based civics and citizenship arguments using subject-specific language”, with the elaboration noting: “creating material for public distribution with a specific purpose and context (for example, an advertisement promoting participation in Australia’s democracy)” 

Ref: http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/humanities-and-social-sciences/civics-and-citizenship/curriculum/7-10?layout=1#cdcode=ACHCS073&level=8

When thinking about pedagogy and lesson plans for this particular content descriptor; embedding the framework of Bloom and the SAMR model a number of options come to mind, including but not limited to:

·       Deciding on which material (content/subject matter) and for which purpose for public distribution

·       The method to decide may be debating teams, emulating a mock court and applying the concepts already learnt (and therefore drawing existing knowledge and learning); with a democratic vote to decide. With individual voters having to explain their reasons for voting one way or another (and indeed, then utilising a range of tasks to capture this. e.g. written work on why you decided the way you did, observations of what swayed votes etc)

·       Through this process – ICT aligned to SAMR could be implemented to scaffold throughout. For example, at a substitution level the students may watch identified ‘you tube’ footage from the Australian parliament website explaining what ‘democracy is’, and then footage of Government Ministers presenting legislation or publicly arguing for the ‘material’ in which the class had decided on. Or the class may review the minutes (capturing motions and decision) of their local council, on an issue that they chose, such as funding a new dog park for instance.

·       This would then go through to ‘redefinition’ level around ‘publicly displaying’ the material; for instance the students may create a ‘class blog’ on the issue of a dog park; and ask their local Ward Councillors to comment on their ‘position’ of the dog park and ask for the Councillors reflection on why they voted one way or the other. This would then be discussed with the class.

·       Aligning this back to Bloom; a task could be set to ask the students to make clear the principles implicit in the decision making of their local councillors; and then ask the students to apply the principles learnt to another (but new) real world example – such as the current nuclear debate in South Australia; and taking this further they could then be ask to 'persuade; their class room peers to their position on this subject; and outline a strategy of how they would convince their family members for instance.

Overall I found that this weeks readings ‘hit the mark’ by way of introducing me to the required level of thinking and systemic approach to work toward or ensure quality teaching and learning.