# data[].attributes.body
Technology is becoming the future and future teachers should learn about all the different types of tech. that can be incorporated into teaching and it gives students more resources to use and learn from.

# data[].attributes.body
There can be downfalls to having technology in the school. Expenses can be a problem if a school does not have enough money or they can not get a lot of computers for students to use. If a teacher teaches old school it is a whole new way of teaching to them and they have to learn how to use the tech first before using it.

# data[].attributes.body
Teachers can evaluate their students to see if they are understanding the subject being taught by different websites. The teacher can use Kahoot, quizlet, or many other cites.

# data[].attributes.body
Is used to identify learning objectives with 6 different levels. It allows teachers to teach these levels somehow in lesson plans and activities in the classroom.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Cite this guide: Armstrong, P. (2010). Bloom's Taxonomy. Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching. Retrieved [todaysdate] from https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/blooms-taxonomy/.

Background Information | The Original Taxonomy | The Revised Taxonomy | Why Use Bloom's Taxonomy? | Further Information

The above graphic is released under a Creative Commons Attribution license. You're free to share, reproduce, or otherwise use it, as long as you attribute it to the Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching. For a higher resolution version, visit our Flickr account and look for the "Download this photo" icon.

Background Information

In 1956, Benjamin Bloom with collaborators Max Englehart, Edward Furst, Walter Hill, and David Krathwohl published a framework for categorizing educational goals: Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Familiarly known as Bloom's Taxonomy, this framework has been applied by generations of K-12 teachers and college instructors in their teaching.

The framework elaborated by Bloom and his collaborators consisted of six major categories: Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation. The categories after Knowledge were presented as "skills and abilities," with the understanding that knowledge was the necessary precondition for putting these skills and abilities into practice.

While each category contained subcategories, all lying along a continuum from simple to complex and concrete to abstract, the taxonomy is popularly remembered according to the six main categories.

The Original Taxonomy (1956)

Here are the authors' brief explanations of these main categories in from the appendix of Taxonomy of Educational Objectives ( Handbook One, pp. 201-207):

Knowledge "involves the recall of specifics and universals, the recall of methods and processes, or the recall of a pattern, structure, or setting."

Comprehension "refers to a type of understanding or apprehension such that the individual knows what is being communicated and can make use of the material or idea being communicated without necessarily relating it to other material or seeing its fullest implications."

Application refers to the "use of abstractions in particular and concrete situations."

Analysis represents the "breakdown of a communication into its constituent elements or parts such that the relative hierarchy of ideas is made clear and/or the relations between ideas expressed are made explicit."

Synthesis involves the "putting together of elements and parts so as to form a whole."

Evaluation engenders "judgments about the value of material and methods for given purposes."

The 1984 edition of Handbook One is available in the CFT Library in Calhoun 116. See its ACORN record for call number and availability.

Barbara Gross Davis, in the "Asking Questions" chapter of Tools for Teaching, also provides examples of questions corresponding to the six categories. This chapter is not available in the online version of the book, but Tools for Teaching is available in the CFT Library. See its ACORN record for call number and availability.

The Revised Taxonomy (2001)

A group of cognitive psychologists, curriculum theorists and instructional researchers, and testing and assessment specialists published in 2001 a revision of Bloom's Taxonomy with the title A Taxonomy for Teaching, Learning, and Assessment. This title draws attention away from the somewhat static notion of "educational objectives" (in Bloom's original title) and points to a more dynamic conception of classification.

The authors of the revised taxonomy underscore this dynamism, using verbs and gerunds to label their categories and subcategories (rather than the nouns of the original taxonomy). These "action words" describe the cognitive processes by which thinkers encounter and work with knowledge:

Remember

Understand

Interpreting

Exemplifying

Classifying

Summarizing

Inferring

Comparing

Explaining

Apply

Analyze

Differentiating

Organizing

Attributing

Evaluate

Create

In the revised taxonomy, knowledge is at the basis of these six cognitive processes, but its authors created a separate taxonomy of the types of knowledge used in cognition:

Factual Knowledge

Knowledge of terminology

Knowledge of specific details and elements

Conceptual Knowledge

Knowledge of classifications and categories

Knowledge of principles and generalizations

Knowledge of theories, models, and structures

Procedural Knowledge

Knowledge of subject-specific skills and algorithms

Knowledge of subject-specific techniques and methods

Knowledge of criteria for determining when to use appropriate procedures

Metacognitive Knowledge

Strategic Knowledge

Knowledge about cognitive tasks, including appropriate contextual and conditional knowledge

Self-knowledge

Mary Forehand from the University of Georgia provides a guide to the revised version giving a brief summary of the revised taxonomy and a helpful table of the six cognitive processes and four types of knowledge.

Why Use Bloom's Taxonomy?

The authors of the revised taxonomy suggest a multi-layered answer to this question, to which the author of this teaching guide has added some clarifying points:

1. Objectives (learning goals) are important to establish in a pedagogical interchange so that teachers and students alike understand the purpose of that interchange.

2. Organizing objectives helps to clarify objectives for themselves and for students.

3. Having an organized set of objectives helps teachers to:

"plan and deliver appropriate instruction";

"design valid assessment tasks and strategies";and

"ensure that instruction and assessment are aligned with the objectives."

Citations are from A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives.

Further Information

Section III of A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, entitled "The Taxonomy in Use," provides over 150 pages of examples of applications of the taxonomy. Although these examples are from the K-12 setting, they are easily adaptable to the university setting.

Section IV, "The Taxonomy in Perspective," provides information about 19 alternative frameworks to Bloom's Taxonomy, and discusses the relationship of these alternative frameworks to the revised Bloom's Taxonomy.

This teaching guide is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
by Patricia Armstrong Print Version Cite this guide: Armstrong, P. (2010). Bloom's Taxonomy. Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching. Retrieved [todaysdate] from https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/blooms-taxonomy/. Background Information | The Original Taxonomy | The Revised Taxonomy | Why Use Bloom's Taxonomy? | Further Information The above graphic is released under a Creative Commons Attribution license.

# data[].attributes.body
There are benefits and down falls to having technology in the classroom. A benefit with technology is having more resources available to students and the teacher.

# data[].attributes.body
Teachers must be organized while teaching. Teachers should have a plan from the beginning of their day to the end of their day. If they do not have a plan they will be very unorganized and it will be hard to have everything organized while teaching.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Almost every task that a teacher is expected to perform on a daily basis falls into one of six categories. Some of these duties-such as lesson planning, classroom management, and assessment-are so critical that they are used by teacher assessment tools to evaluate teacher effectiveness. Others are more basic organizational and operational chores.

If you are just starting out or considering teaching, it helps to know what your responsibilities will include. Find out whether there are any additional school-specific duties that you will be expected to take on as well.

Here are the six main categories of teaching duties.

Lesson planning is a critical aspect of teaching that often happens days before a lesson is taught. Planning, developing and organizing instruction are some of the biggest duties of the job.

When you plan lessons effectively, day-to-day teaching tasks become much easier and more successful. Many teachers feel that they do not have time to dedicate to careful lesson planning. If this is true for you, know that lesson planning is worth the effort because it simplifies your teaching in the long run.

Assessment should take place in your classroom every day, whether it is formative or summative. You will not be able to tell if your instruction is working if you don't regularly test student comprehension. As you sit down to develop a lesson, you need to also include systems for measuring how well students have achieved its learning goals. Do the same for entire units and subjects.

Assessments are not only a measure of your success as a teacher but a tool to be used for exceptional planning. Reflect on your assessments and study their results to determine how you should proceed after a lesson-are there students you need to meet with? Is the whole class ready to move on?

An often-overlooked teaching task that makes all the difference between a good teacher and a great one is research. Teachers must make determinations about what will best suit their classroom in terms of lesson delivery, accommodations and modifications for differently-abled students, student work structures, and more.

In order to make informed decisions about these, effective teachers research often and remain open-minded. You must keep up on the latest developments and look for new tools for your teaching arsenal that will improve your teaching practice.

Many new teachers find this area of teaching most intimidating. But with a couple of tools and a little practice using them, you can create a practical classroom management policy to help you keep your classroom under control.

A firm discipline policy is a great place to start. Post rules for student conduct-and the consequences of breaking them-somewhere in the classroom for all to see. Fairly and consistently enforce these to establish a functional system of classroom management.

Every teacher must meet certain professional obligations depending on their school, district, state, and area of certification. These range from menial tasks such as hall duty during a planning period or after school to more involved tasks like those needed to meet requirements for recertification (professional development, college courses, etc.).

Teachers can also go above and beyond to sponsor a club, chair a committee, or even host after-school study sessions in their classroom. While these are usually not required, they are often highly encouraged sacrifices.

For many teachers, the abundance of paperwork that comes with the job is the most annoying part. To have to spend time taking attendance, recording grades, making copies, and documenting student progress are all necessary evils. These housekeeping and recordkeeping tasks are just part of the job description.

Regardless of how you feel about them, how you handle these tasks says a lot about your organizational skills. Put systems in place to make these tedious processes more efficient so that you will be able to spend more time teaching and interacting with students and less time doing paperwork.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What is a teacher's main task? Teaching involves many important duties, but these six basic tasks are the most important for a successful classroom.

# data[].attributes.body
The 8C's are for learning. They all have different meanings that relate to the web or how students interact with each other and work together.

# data[].attributes.body
Allows people to understand how social media plays a role in behavior and social actions in the real world.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
'Affordance' is a term most designers will have come across at some stage of their studies and careers, but since Don Norman introduced this concept to the design community, the underlying meaning has lost clarity and the term has subsequently been misused.

Emphasising the correct use of design terms may at times seem more of an exercise in pedantry than offering anything substantial to the development of user-friendly products, but the ability to converse, share and communicate ideas underpins the design process. Without an agreed and consistent vocabulary, our ability to quickly and effectively convey thoughts, feelings, and ideas is constrained.

Author/Copyright holder: Unknown. Copyright terms and licence: Unknown.
Defining 'Affordance'

As the term 'affordance' has been somewhat appropriated by the design community, it is often misattributed to Norman, who first mentioned affordances in the context of design in The Design of Everyday Things (1988). However, the notion of an 'affordance' was conceived by James J. Gibson (1977; 1979), a prominent perceptual psychologist, who originally used the term to describe "...the actionable properties between the world and an actor [user]" (Norman, Affordances and Design).

Gibson's definition essentially identifies the powerful relationship between man and things. Whether through experience or some innate ability (we will leave this debate for another day), we are capable of assessing objects according to their perceptible properties. These interpretations allow us to both determine an object's possible uses and analyse how they might help us achieve our aims and objectives. For example, just by looking at a glass we can determine that the object affords holding liquid, so we can quench our thirst. Some affordances are less obvious, and many yet to be realised, but with objects in the real, physical world, there is a natural and direct relationship between the perceptible qualities of tangible things and what we can do with them.

The Evolution of "Affordances"

In human-computer interaction, we cannot rely on this natural relationship. Aside from touchscreens, interactive elements in screen-based interfaces have affordances that exist in the virtual world alone, and the means of interaction are almost exclusive to this domain. Norman referred to the affordances found in screen-based interfaces as 'perceived', on the grounds that users form and develop notions of what they can do according to conventions, constraints, and visual, auditory, and sometimes haptic feedback.

Norman's distinction between real and perceived affordances is an important one for designers, especially those involved in the development of graphical user interfaces. While we have tacit knowledge of how the perceptible characteristics of physical objects will be interpreted, the design of graphical elements requires an understanding of what the user assumes or perceives will occur as a result of their interaction(s).

Perceived Affordances in Graphical User Interfaces

Author/Copyright holder: Z.Evelyn. Copyright terms and licence: All rights reserved
For experienced users, interacting with screen-based interfaces is an activity often taken for granted. You know where and when to click at each stage of a task, that desktop icons must be double-clicked to open the contents, red squares with an embedded white cross signify that clicking will close the window, panel, or page, and that right clicking on the screen (at most points) will usually reveal a sub-set of options, such as 'back', 'reload', 'save as...', and 'print' on a webpage. In contrast to the real affordances found in the physical world, these are learned conventions that are revealed or signified by established, consistent, but artificial, cues.

At most points during human-computer interaction, users are able to move a cursor - or pointer of some sort - to click on all parts of the screen and tap the keys on their keyboard, but whether these actions are meaningful or have any effect on the screen, system, or software is dependent on what has been programmed. The designer must, therefore, provide explicit cues (and as the user becomes more experienced and proficient, implicit cues) that help the user determine what effect(s) their interactions will have, when to carry out specific actions, and to help them establish whether these actions have been successful/unsuccessful.

Identifying Real and Perceived Affordances

Our ability to identify affordances in the real-world is constrained almost solely by our current drives and motivations (or our imagination). For example, when asked to identify the affordances of a kitchen towel we might think of the primary uses, such as drying, wiping, and for heat-protection when taking something hot from the oven. However, in a different situation, we would be capable of finding alternative uses for the kitchen towel, such as using it to put out a pan fire, or to prevent a chopping board from sliding.

In contrast, graphical objects and interactive elements are much less flexible; we can usually left/right click, double-click, hold down a button and drag, or use the keyboard, but the actual results of these actions are constrained by the interface. For this reason, users' actions are based on predictions, which are only confirmed once the action has been carried out.

Perceived Affordances and Consistency

If users are to instantly identify the interactive elements on a screen, and accurately predict the results of their interactions, the interface must work according to their expectations. These expectations are based on prior experience with other products. By conforming to the design traditions, such as those mentioned above, the user is able to apply knowledge from one interface to another. Conversely, inconsistencies will more than likely lead to inaccurate predictions and errors as a direct result.

Consistency across different interfaces is important, but if you are dealing with new or innovative products, you may introduce new or unfamiliar actions. When this is the case, consistency is still essential, as the user must be able to apply their understanding of the perceived affordances from one situation to another within the same product. For example, consider a computer game where the player can pick up a number of different objects; if there were a different action or set of button presses for each specific object there is far greater potential for user error, as there are multiple methods of interaction to achieve the same result in the game (i.e. picking something up).

Affordances and Modern Technology

Traditionally, perceived affordances are based on domain-specific conventions and consistency, but in the last ten to twenty years, and especially with the evolution of touchscreens, designers have been taking inspiration from real affordances to allow the application of knowledge from the real-world to the virtual world. Users are now able to touch (e.g. Apple products), shake (e.g. Nintendo Wii controllers), blow (e.g. the Nintendo DS), swipe (e.g. e-Readers), and rotate (e.g. computer controllers) objects to influence events in the virtual world in a way that match the corresponding activities in the real-world.

The use of real-world affordances as inspiration in the design of products in human-computer interaction may present the possibility of a smooth passage from the physical to the virtual world. However, it also has the potential to influence the user negatively; especially, if the required behaviours are similar but the resulting events are unpredictable, or the necessary actions inaccurately reflect those activities we would carry out in the physical world.

Whichever approach designers adopt, their users must be able to develop an accurate view of the interface, so they can instantly and unconsciously predict the effect(s) of their actions to achieve as stable and predictable a relationship as that found between man and things in the real-world.

Header Image: Author/Copyright holder: Dorian Taylor. Copyright terms and licence: All rights reserved. Img

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
'Affordance' is a term most designers will have come across at some stage of their studies and careers, but since Don Norman introduced this concept to the design community, the underlying meaning has lost clarity and the term has subsequently been misused.