As far as higher order - it depends on the objectives. There are plenty of strategies that might use only reading to present content and students will gain higher order skills but is that the best? Maybe for the given situation it is. However, we know from the multimedia principles, instructional strategies, etc that something like experiential learning might be best. But its really by task, context, situation, learners, budget, timeframe, etc.
Thank you again for the comments and the links. I've read the "Will At Work Learning" site before. It would seem the videoscribe warrants review and updating. I personally, use the Bloom's Taxonomy in any activity that takes place in my class, whether it is an evaluation, assessment or group activity. My question, however is if the problem is that the pyramid has numbers or if the actual concept is invalid? Have you tried to do an experiment to see if the concept is invalid?
Bloom's is great and probably the most popular taxonomy used - I am actually going through it with a class tonight:) As far as Dale's, everything is mostly not true. Its more about what is the best instructional strategy for a certain type of content. So do students learn more from doing than listening? Well it depends what my goal is. If my goal is to have them memorize a word, then listening might be the better way. If its to perform a task, then doing might be best.
what i notice about all the videos on bloom's taxonomy, they all tell you that to become a good learn one needs to get to a higher level of the pyramid but none of the videos tell you how
Note that whether people believe the Dale's Pyramide to be a myth, the animation make reference to the Bloom's Taxonomy as a way to better learning. Now, if people believe that Bloom also made this stuff up that's a different matter...
Thank you for your comment. I would, however, like to read the source of the information. If Dale admitted to it as a fake, it has to be documented somewhere. Otherwise, the comment would stay in the realm of the anecdotal accounts.
What I mean is if you agree that students learn more from doing than from listening? Bloom's Taxonomy seems to suggest that, and if we want students, not only to learn more, but to retain more, they need to develop higher oder cognitive skills. Does 'listening' only achieve that? Does 'reading' only achieve that? Seems like a good thing to test and measure in class. I would welcome collaboration to do that, so that if Dale's ideas are to be refuted, there is data to do so, if not already done
Here is a write up I have done on the cone: raypastoreDotCom/wordpress/2012/04/bad-instructional-design/. Unfortunately its been passed off as true even though there was never any research that even attempted to test it out. Your video was nice though, I just had to comment on the cone because its one of those things too many classes are teaching that is incorrect.
Here we go again using Dale's work which does not have a valid researched background. Even Dale said it - his numbers were generalizations - this is the "power" of the internet - materials that are not accurate and tested get shared and shared and shared and gain veracity by the number of people repeating the erroneous information.
Nowhere on this video says that Dale's pyramid is 'the truth', nor it says is the only way... if his numbers are generalizations, that's fine. What I fail to see if the evidence that it doesn't work. Showing that kind of evidence may be more valuable than the criticismalone, which by the way is well taken. When I have the time, I'll come around to do a Bloom's Taxonomy video, which is where the video focuses on.
Active learning is neither active nor learning. Mental processing (which isn't active) is required for learning and this person is talking about instruction, not learning. The data about percent of information learned is a well-known fraud. The author needs to look at real evidence, such as the evidence that spoken language over images is better than text with music.
![BRASIL vs. PERÚ [4-0] | RESUMEN | ELIMINATORIAS SUDAMERICANAS | FECHA 10](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tbyOJKXfQnI/mqdefault.jpg)
I love this...very clear and entertaining in learning "active learning".
LUOA gang
👇
I was looking for a fun, engaging video to do a refresher on Bloom's Taxonomy with my new training team. This is awesome. Thanks for posting it!
You're welcome!
As far as higher order - it depends on the objectives. There are plenty of strategies that might use only reading to present content and students will gain higher order skills but is that the best? Maybe for the given situation it is. However, we know from the multimedia principles, instructional strategies, etc that something like experiential learning might be best. But its really by task, context, situation, learners, budget, timeframe, etc.
Thank you again for the comments and the links. I've read the "Will At Work Learning" site before. It would seem the videoscribe warrants review and updating. I personally, use the Bloom's Taxonomy in any activity that takes place in my class, whether it is an evaluation, assessment or group activity.
My question, however is if the problem is that the pyramid has numbers or if the actual concept is invalid? Have you tried to do an experiment to see if the concept is invalid?
Bloom's is great and probably the most popular taxonomy used - I am actually going through it with a class tonight:) As far as Dale's, everything is mostly not true. Its more about what is the best instructional strategy for a certain type of content. So do students learn more from doing than listening? Well it depends what my goal is. If my goal is to have them memorize a word, then listening might be the better way. If its to perform a task, then doing might be best.
what i notice about all the videos on bloom's taxonomy, they all tell you that to become a good learn one needs to get to a higher level of the pyramid but none of the videos tell you how
Note that whether people believe the Dale's Pyramide to be a myth, the animation make reference to the Bloom's Taxonomy as a way to better learning. Now, if people believe that Bloom also made this stuff up that's a different matter...
Thank you for your comment. I would, however, like to read the source of the information. If Dale admitted to it as a fake, it has to be documented somewhere. Otherwise, the comment would stay in the realm of the anecdotal accounts.
Good job! keep creating !
Hello Gabriel, do you have theoretical framework for Active Learning? thanks!
What I mean is if you agree that students learn more from doing than from listening? Bloom's Taxonomy seems to suggest that, and if we want students, not only to learn more, but to retain more, they need to develop higher oder cognitive skills. Does 'listening' only achieve that? Does 'reading' only achieve that? Seems like a good thing to test and measure in class. I would welcome collaboration to do that, so that if Dale's ideas are to be refuted, there is data to do so, if not already done
Thanks again for the elaboration!
We talked about Bloom's in class last week.
Here is a write up I have done on the cone: raypastoreDotCom/wordpress/2012/04/bad-instructional-design/. Unfortunately its been passed off as true even though there was never any research that even attempted to test it out. Your video was nice though, I just had to comment on the cone because its one of those things too many classes are teaching that is incorrect.
salve salve familia
nah
Here is another site with a lot more info as well as what Edgar Dale said about his cone: willatworklearningDotCom/2006/05/people_remember.html
Here we go again using Dale's work which does not have a valid researched background. Even Dale said it - his numbers were generalizations - this is the "power" of the internet - materials that are not accurate and tested get shared and shared and shared and gain veracity by the number of people repeating the erroneous information.
Nowhere on this video says that Dale's pyramid is 'the truth', nor it says is the only way... if his numbers are generalizations, that's fine. What I fail to see if the evidence that it doesn't work. Showing that kind of evidence may be more valuable than the criticismalone, which by the way is well taken. When I have the time, I'll come around to do a Bloom's Taxonomy video, which is where the video focuses on.
Active learning is neither active nor learning. Mental processing (which isn't active) is required for learning and this person is talking about instruction, not learning. The data about percent of information learned is a well-known fraud. The author needs to look at real evidence, such as the evidence that spoken language over images is better than text with music.