So what’s all this fuss with learning taxonomies anyway? For instance I don’t really see much/any difference in Bloom’s vs. the SOLO taxonomy. Many of the verbs used are the same (when comparing SOLO to the revised Bloom taxonomy) put in a slightly different order. Also, they’re both based on a hierarchical system [in my opinion, whether it be a pyramid (Bloom) or steps (SOLO)]…meaning you have mastered all lower levels when you are at ‘X’ level (i.e. in Bloom’s revised you must understand before you can apply, or in SOLO you must be unistructural before you can be multistructural). I guess I am just not sure yet how any of that informs my teaching practice other than the idea that the students must know some vocabulary/facts before they can move on to understanding and applying. However, I heard many people discuss in class that they must see the big picture/context then find out the details and then see those details again in the context of the big picture. That’s why they don’t like Bloom’s, but does that not also argue against SOLO? Is the unistructural (identify, name) component of SOLO different than the remembering base of Bloom’s?
It doesn’t feel like these inform my teaching practice and therefore they don’t seem useful to me. I guess also the general point of the taxonomies also seems somewhat obvious to me. Yes you need to know the vocabulary of a topic and remember it before you can go on and understand it. You need to understand it before you can apply or evaluate it, etc…
I found in class that while I understood what the Bloom’s and SOLO taxonomies were getting at, they didn’t necessarily resonate with me. I think that Jeff being able to categorize most in the scientific disciplines by the SOLO taxonomy made me want to disagree with that taxonomy (but that might just be my whole not wanting to fit into a standard category, similar to Laura not wanting to be confined by structures). I also agree with Laura’s general thesis that taxonomies may not be that useful in practice.
Micro/Immuno Blogger also brings up the point that teachers tend to teach based on how they learn/their preferred taxonomy, however this may not resonate with their students! So could these taxonomies be more of a problem then a solution? I think both Laura and Micro are getting at the same thing…as teachers/learning facilitators maybe we just need to listen to our students more.
I’m hoping this is one of those cases where I just don’t ‘get it’ yet. Anyone want to help me along here?
Here’s a great resource on Bloom’s taxonomy (they even apply the taxonomy to learning about the Goldilocks story, cool idea).
Lifelong Learner 
Thanks for mentioning me in your blog post! I agree with you. At first, I didn’t get the point of these taxonomies. I still don’t think you can really pigeon-hole a student into one vs. the other. Maybe they are a combination of two? Therefore, is it a taxonomy at all? Or, will someone come up with a “new” taxonomy that molds all 3 into 1 and then it will be the new highly cited taxonomy? Personally, I think the brain and learning is too complex to categorize a student into one type of taxonomy. Maybe it changes depending on the subject matter, the age of the student, their progression, and personal discipline/motivation. I don’t know. I don’t think it is a bad thing at all that you say you don’t get it. Personally, I don’t know if I will ever get it or care about it. More importantly, knowing that students don’t learn the same and that it might take various methods of presenting the material (regardless of whether you as the educator learns in this particular manner) in order to engage and actively help students learn. To me, knowing that, is way more important than figuring out what taxonomy the student falls into. But that’s just me…