A little refresher on Bloom's Taxonomy

I attended the weekend workshop from BESIG today and Michelle Hunter mentioned two points in her opening about coaching and ELT which really struck a chord with me.

First, she said that when attending conferences and workshops she found herself frustrated that she already 'knew' the information being presented.  She attributed this to the fact that she was drawn to subjects which were comfortable and in which she already possessed a high level of knowledge.  For me, I was nodding my head thinking, "Yes, that is what happened to me in Glasgow on the first two days."

However, her very next point brought home why we have to keep reflecting on our professional development and why sometimes hearing what we already know can be quite helpful.  She said that there is a difference between what we know in our mind and what we know on a deeper level.  For me, I have been exposed to so many ideas in such a short time and studied so much, the gap she mentioned is quite large.  I often get the feeling that the theories and concepts I have in my mind don't always seem to make it into my training.

So, the purpose of this post to look at one of those items I have learned in the last few years, but never seemed to reach that deeper level of knowledge; Bloom's Taxonomy of Learning.

Many of you have probably heard of this concept.  I originally learned about it in a university course on learning styles and methods.  But perhaps it warrants a little review both in the context of professional development and our learners.

Summary of Bloom's Taxonomy

Benjamin Bloom proposed that there are sequential cognitive abilities applied within the process of learning.  He pointed to three lower levels and three upper levels in the cognitive domain.  Primarily, these levels are used to develop assessments to establish which level of mastery has taken place.  Since he proposed the theory in the 1950s, the names of the levels have been changed to those you see above, but the general principles have remained in tact.  Putting the taxonomy into practice, Bloom outlined verbs which place assessment questions into the various levels.  For example, if you can 'give examples' of a learning point, you have successfully reached understading (or comprehension as Bloom called it).  If you can support or criticize a learning point, you have reached the evaluation level.

Here is a list of selected verbs associated with the various levels.

Remember	list, label, name, define, describe, locate, select, match, tell, who?, what?, when?, where?, and how?
Understand	summarize, contrast, differentiate, discuss, explain, give examples, restate, rewrite, translate, illustrate
Apply	apply, modify, predict, model, sketch, prepare, use, draw, solve
Analyze	distinguish, arrange, prioritize, categorize, compare, sequence, connect
Evaluate	decide, rank, recommend, defend, support, predict, justify, convince
Create	compose, design, write, role play, imagine, develop, invent, arrange

The Taxonomy in Professional Development

I am guessing that if you are reading this blog, you are passionate about professional development.  The problem with the blogosphere and twitterati method of professional development is that it does not expicitly enable reaching the higher levels of ability.  For example, I can name probably 100 different ways to use technology in the classroom.  I can give examples of activities in which they can be used.  I can even explain the learning benefits which can be achieved (following my verbs?).  But I cannot distinquish which are right for my learners, justify using them, or develop lesson plans around them.

So, where do I go from here?  Without the structure of formal education, I need to use my self-reflection sessions and lesson logs to achieve these higher levels.  In short, I need to reflect with a purpose.  It could look something like this...

Focus:  Approach
"Okay, today I introduced 15 new lexical items.  Which method did I use?  Was it effective?  How would this activity look using Dogme, the Lexical Approach, Discovery, the Silent Way, TBL, etc.?  Which of these would have been (or will be) best for my learners?  Why?  How would I defend my choice against Scott Thornbury or Michael Lewis?  Finally, what can I create from this decision?"

Focus:  Technology
"Okay, today I introduced 15 new lexical items.  What technology did I use?  Was it effective?  How would this activity look using an app, a mindmap, a website, media, a java/flash applet?  Which of these would have been (or will be) best for my learners?  Why?  How would I defend my choice against the Consultants-E or the publisher techies?  Finally, what can I create from this decision?"

I think this focused self-reflection will enable me to finally reach those higher levels.

The Taxonomy in Our Training

This topic in second language acqusition is nothing new and a simple google search will reveal many resources.

However, I would like to highlight two points.

One:  Pushing learners up the taxonomy is high demand teaching

Prepared teaching plans typically follow the flow from low to high ability.  This is also the essence of PPP.  For example, first the learners identify a word, then they understand it, then they apply it into a structured activity.  Then poof, there is a discussion activity in which they must create it in the correct context.  However, without the trainer really ensuring the learners have full command of the word, most are inclined to stay in their comfort zone.

Jim Scrivener's talk about swimming in the language mentioned using activities to 'linger'.  In his examples he was essentially asking the students to analyze, evaluate, and create using the language point.  It could be grammar, lexis, functions, skills... it doesn't matter.

The point is that in BE classrooms we spend a lot of time asking our learners to user their higher thinking skills to process the content/situation (something they can already do) and less time asking them to really analyze, evaluate, and create the target language.  This leads to the second point.

Two:  Integrate the taxonomy into own materials

For us to ensure learners are using high cognitive skills on the lanuage, we need to be certain our materials are correct.  Course books get it right sometimes but when using a course book we should certainly view the activities to see what is missing.  But for our self-made materials, we need to double check that we are driving learning.  Let's look at how Bloom's Taxonomy can help us improve our self-made materials.  Here are some ideas:

1.  Matching and crosswords are not enough.  After this, we could ask them to connect the target lexis with other words in the same context.  Or connect the list together into some kind of diagram (flow chart, mindmap, etc.)
2.  In a cloze exercize, don't provide all the answers in a word box.  Ask them to predict which words come next and then defend why to a partner or the class.
3.  In error correction activities, place a line under the question asking them to defend why it is wrong and why their version is correct.
4.  Give them three of four examples of sentences with various grammar forms which are all correct.  Ask them to build a dialog or situation in which the different sentences could be used.
5.  At the end of a lesson, with all the 'stumbled upon' lexis on the board, ask the learners to rank them by frequency.  Which will they use more often, sometimes, never?  Then have them support their ranking with clear reasons.

I would love to hear more ideas.

In conclusion, I understood exactly what Michelle was talking about in her webinar, it is something I battle with constantly.  Perhaps a structure like Bloom's Taxonomy can help.

Social Media & Marketing Success LIVE WEBINAR!

YOU ASKED FOR IT AND NOW IT'S HERE!!! DON'T MISS THIS CHANCE TO PROPEL YOUR BUSINESS AND LIFE FORWARD!

I am sooooo excited to be bringing you this session! You have no idea!! I've been working on this material for a long time and I'm excited to be delivering it to you NOW!!! I promise you so much information that you can put in place! But not only that... I will be showing and telling in a way that reveals what really works vs. what's a waste of time and money.

This is YOUR chance to truly make yourself stand out from the crowd and learn how to make money from the networks and contacts you already have! It makes no sense to have thousands of contacts and not monetize them on some level!

If you've never heard me teach or been in one of my sessions, I can assure you that you're in for a treat. Great information, great material and great fun with an engaging delivery style. There's nothing dry about my approach and you will get TONS of PRACTICAL things you can put in place in your own business.

Please remember to register, however. That's the only way into the webinar!!

Check in at https://www.facebook.com/events/223001147809907/ so I know you'll be there and for more information! Then REGISTER at http://socialmediaandmarketingsuccess.eventbrite.com/ to receive webinar instructions and password!

Any questions? E-MAIL ME!

How can you be IMPORTUNATE today?

How can you be IMPORTUNATE today? Not even sure what I mean? Keep reading!

"Then He said to them, “Suppose one of you has a friend, and goes to him at midnight and says to him, ‘Friend, lend me three loaves; for a friend of mine has come to me from a journey, and I have nothing to set before him’; and from inside he answers and says, ‘Do not bother me; the door has already been shut and my children and I are in bed; I cannot get up and give you anything.’ I tell you, even though he will not get up and give him anything because he is his friend, yet because of his PERSISTENCE he will get up and give him as much as he needs.

“So I say to you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives; and he who seeks, finds; and to him who knocks, it will be opened." ~Luke 11:5-10 (NASB)

I actually like verse 8 in the KJV a lot more because it uses the word "importunity" instead of "persistence" - and importunity is a powerful word! To be importunate is far beyond being persistent. It is to be troublesome to the point of almost being disrespectful. It is being inappropriate. It is being unbending even though you are undeserving.

An importune person is a person who will not be denied and the Lord says THAT is the way to be when you want something!

Talk to you again soon! I can't wait to hear your testimonies! Please remember to SUBSCRIBE (using the form to the right on this blog!) and also leave me your comments so I know how to serve you better!! If this was helpful, forward it to a friend. Talk to you soon! Please subscribe and visit me on my Live BIG! Die Empty. Facebook page!!

Making Wind Energy Better for the Environment

What if, instead of wastefully subsidizing all those eyesore wind turbines that really have proven to be not-so-great at providing power so much as they are a highly effective means of killing flocks of endangered birds, we took a step back and built wind turbines that can both generate electricity and not kill birds with their gigantic turbine blades?

To that end, we're going to explore an interesting trend among the engineers and designers who actually care about achieving both these goals, inflatable wind turbines!

Via Core77, the first concept we're featuring today is being developed as a very low cost, yet effective way, to provide power from the wind on a small scale in remote locations:

It might be called Compromise Design: If cost constraints would prevent the perfect object from being commercially successful, is it better to design something with inferior performance but feasible manufacturability?

That was the question answered with a "yes" by Israeli company Winflex Wind Turbines, whose Composite Material Flexible Rotor consists of sail-like blades connected to an inflatable wheel.

The unique rotor design enables a dramatically simpler overall turbine layout resulting in a cost effective and competitive system for a wide range of power ratings, starting with small turbines and scaling up to MW range. The unique and simple manufacturing method of the rotor, without the need for expensive molds or special tooling, enables tailor-made, rapid design and assembly of the WINFLEX turbine, according to the specific site characteristics and customer requirements, providing maximum efficiency and overall cost effectiveness.

Sure it's not as efficient as a conventional wind turbine, but its lower cost, durable structure, easy transportation & installation, and low-maintenance will hopefully outweigh that in the marketplace, enabling a bunch of these to go up where the regular kind was too expensive.

It occurs to us that the inflatable portion of the turbine's design could go a long way to reducing the death rates associated with birds attempting to fly through areas with hundreds of "regular" wind turbines.

But then, these kinds of turbines are still where birds are most likely to be: within just a few hundred feet of ground level!

So what if you were to make an inflatable wind turbine that you could fly above where most of the birds are, which would also make it more efficient at producing energy?

Check this out (HT: Core77):

The problem with wind turbines as an energy source are those darn towers and enormous blades. No one likes living under them, with people complaining that the stroboscopic effect of continuously sliced sunlight gives them headaches. Thus wind farms have to be tucked away in remote locations, which means trucking the construction supplies out to those remote locations to build them in the first place. And the construction isn't easy: The sites are of course chosen for their persistently strong winds, a crane operator's nightmare.

Altaeros Energies, a company developed out of MIT research, has been working on a rather brilliant solution: A floating wind turbine. By placing the blade inside a tethered, massive balloon, you can float the thing up to high altitudes (where the winds are five times stronger than what you get at the top of a tower), no construction necessary. And neighbors aren't likely to complain about a balloon 1,000 feet in the sky.

As for what you saw in the video, Core77's hipstomp comments:

What you saw there was a scaled prototype, 35 feet in diameter. During the test run it arrived on-site in a dock attached to a trailer, then deployed, activated the turbine, and returned to the ground—all automatically. At its highest altitude of 350 feet, it successfully got the turbine to generate twice as much juice than it gets at tower height. We'd say Altaeros is one to watch.

As an extra bonus, flying the wind turbines would eliminate the problem that regular wind turbines have of keeping the ground from cooling off at night.

The future is a lot more interesting place than you might ever have thought!

California vs the U.S.: Quarterly GDP

We've been playing with the BEA's state-level GDP data to see how tough it would be to tease out a pretty good approximation of each state's quarterly GDP.

That doesn't sound very impressive until you find out that the BEA only records the state GDP data annually, and not by the quarter, like it does for the U.S.' national GDP data.

The reason why we're interested is to be better able to dig deeper to be better able to identify economically-distressed states within the U.S. Speaking of which, we're presenting the charts we developed for the state of California, which by all accounts, hasn't doing very well in recent years.

Here, we're showing the period from 1992 through 2010, which corresponds to the most recently available data posted by the BEA for the state level data - the data for 2011 won't be available until 1 June 2012.

First up - here's an area chart showing how much of the U.S. economy has been represented by California in for every quarter from 1992 through 2010:

During this period, California's economy has ranged from being 12 to 13.5% of the U.S. economy. Next, we estimated the annualized nominal growth rates recorded in each quarter from 1992-Q1 through 2010-Q4 for California and for all other states in the U.S.:

Then we got real! Or rather, we adjusted each quarter's growth rate for both California and the rest of the United States by their respective rates of inflation (for California, we used the average rate of inflation recorded for the Los Angeles and San Francisco metropolitan areas during this time). We've also emphasized a number of economic periods of interest on the chart:

Finally, we calculated the net difference between California and the rest of the U.S.' real growth rates to help identify when California's economy either grew more strongly, or less strongly, than the rest of the nation:

In this final chart, we see that except for a very brief period of time in which its economic growth was falling, but not as fast as in the rest of the U.S., California's economy has been somewhat of a drag on the U.S. economy since the third and really the fourth quarter of 2006 through at least the end of 2010.

We'll close by observing that fixing whatever might be wrong with California's economy will go a long way to improving the economic health of the entire United States.

New Jobless Claims: Thunderdome Edition!

Previously, we advanced two possible hypotheses that might explain what is currently happening with the number of seasonally-adjusted initial unemployment insurance claim applications being filed in the U.S. each week:

1. The number of new jobless claims filed each week is in the process of leveling out somewhere between 370,000 and 380,000, which is about 60,000-70,000 higher than the typical levels that were recorded before the December 2007 recession began.


2. Rising oil and gasoline prices in the U.S. have derailed the most recent falling trend in new jobless claims, and a new, negative trend has begun where the number of claims filed each week is rising.

In that post, we indicated that we might not know which hypothesis was correct until sometime this summer. But that was before the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics released its initial estimate of the number of new jobless benefit claim filings on Thursday, 26 April 2012. Now, it is very possible we might know the answer as early as this upcoming Thursday, 3 May 2012.

We've updated both charts showing our two hypotheses to incorporate the data as it stands as of the BLS' 26 April 2012 report. The first chart illustrates our first hypothesis:

In this chart, we would seem to be realizing our first hypothesis, in that the indicated trend, which we've identified as Trend I, is in the process of flatlining.

Now take a closer look. Focusing in on the data from 4 February 2012 through 31 March 2012, we see that the mean trend line for all data reported since 3 December 2011 has shifted in the past week so that all but one of these data points are below the line.

Following the well-established rules developed by Western Electric over half a century ago to determine whether or not an existing trend has broken down after having been in statistical equilibrium, which are visually depicted in the bell-curve image (it's not there for decoration!), we find that all it would take for us to declare this hypothesis to be false is for the most recent data, for the week ending 21 April 2012, to be revised upward by more that 2,000 claims, as the resulting change in the mean trend line will place the data for these nine consecutive weeks below it.

If the BLS keeps to its recent track record, it will definitely be revising the number of new jobless claims recorded for the week ending 21 April 2012 upward when it revises its data for that week this Thursday, 3 May 2012 - the only question is by how much.

Our second chart shows what the new trend would look like at this point in time:

This Thursday, our two hypotheses regarding the current trend in new jobless benefit claim filings will enter the theoretical Thunderdome, and very possibly, only one will leave. Stay tuned!

Major Update (3 May 2012): Hypothesis Two Confirmed!

Trend I is dead. Trend J has begun. All hail J!

The official announcement is here (jobless claims for 21 April 2012 revised upward by 4,000....)

Revisiting the Future for Dividends

We weren't planning to revisit the future for the S&P 500's dividends quite so soon, but ExxonMobil's move to boost their cash dividend payments per share by 21% to reclaim the title of being the S&P 500's biggest dividend payer forced our hand!

But that wasn't the only big change, as oil-giant Chevron also announced that it would boost its own cash dividend payments by 11%.

Our first chart shows how the future for the amount of dividends expected to be paid out in the twelve months before the dividend futures contracts for indicated quarters end has changed as a result of ExxonMobil's and Chevron's announcements:

Unlike Apple, who instantly became the second biggest payer of dividends in the S&P 500 index after AT&T when the company announced it would reinstate its long dormant dividend payments, the combination of third-ranked ExxonMobil's 21% increase to move into the top spot with Chevron's smaller 11% increase had a much smaller effect on the market-capitalization weighted cash dividends per share for the S&P 500.

For those who like to see what's in the future for the S&P 500 index as a result of these changes, here's our chart showing the change in the rates of growth of both the S&P 500's average monthly index value and its expected dividends per share:

An objective reading of the chart indicates two changes affecting stock prices in the relative absence of noise: one in the very near short term as investors adapt to their just changed expectations for dividend payments that has shifted the future from where it was, and the other playing out in the longer term given their overall expectations for the future. We'll close by noting that investors appear to remain focused on the fourth quarter of 2012 in setting the average level of stock prices for the S&P 500.