Urganch state university

CONCLUSION

Although challenging for many students, practicing self-evaluation and the concepts of criticizing, reframing, defending, appraising and grading can be a valuable assessment tool for both students and teachers. Using the structure of Bloom's system, students can self-assess using written reflection and peer interviewing. After an assignment is completed students use a mark scheme or teacher-made guidelines to write down what they see as their weaknesses and strengths. Then, pairing up with another student, they compare their observations, sharing insights as well as responses to what they had in common and in which ways they differed. A whole-class, teacher-led discussion follows, with additional sharing and comments. The skill of self-evaluation will serve students well, as they use and understand complicated concepts in the future.

Bloom's Taxonomy provides a strong alternative to standardized testing and a hyper focus on performance and conformity. By encouraging students to think critically and work through more and more sophisticated thought processes, it brings back into the educational picture something that has been lacking for quite some time: helping students develop ways to understand, analyze and synthesize knowledge.
The purpose of this article is to develop a clear understanding of what Bloom’s Taxonomy is, and how you can apply it in your own teaching and learning. Towards the end of the article you will find some free Bloom’s resources and teaching resources which will help get you started.
If you have been teaching for any length of time, you are extremely likely to have come across Bloom’s taxonomy at one point or another. Maybe you are very familiar with it already and use it daily to inform your teaching and assessment.
For many of us, however, our familiarity with Bloom’s taxonomy may be limited to catching a passing reference to it at a teaching conference or a staff training.


REFERENCES:

1. 
   Ong, Walter (1982). Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. London: Methuen. ISBN 9780415027960.
   
2. 
   Haas, Christina. (1996). Writing technology: Studies on the materiality of literacy. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
   
3. 
   Schmandt-Besserat, Denise and Michael Erard. (2008) "Origins and Forms of Writing." Handbook of Research on Writing: History, Society, School, Individual, Text. Charles Bazerman, ed. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 7-21 [21].
   
4. 
   Estrem, Heidi. "Writing is a Knowledge-Making Activity." Naming What We Know: Threshold Concepts of Writing Studies. L. Adler-Kassner & E. Wardle, eds. Logan: Utah State University Press, 2015: 55-56.
   
5. 
   Winsor, Dorothy A. (1994). "Invention and Writing in Technical Work: Representing the Object". Written Communication. 11 (2): 227–250. doi:10.1177/0741088394011002003. S2CID 145645219.
   
6. 
   Harris, Roy (2000). Rethinking Writing. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Press.
   
7. 
   Smith, Dorothy E. (2005). Institutional Ethnography: A Sociology for People. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 105–108. ISBN 978-0-7591-0502-7.
   
8. 
   Jakobs, Eva-Maria; Perrin, Daniel (2014). "Introduction and research roadmap: Writing and text production". Handbook of writing and text production. De Gruyter / Mouton. p. 8. ISBN 978-3-11-022063-6.
   
9. 
   "The Khipu Database Project". Archived from the original on 22 July 2011. Retrieved 2 November 2008.
   
10. 
    Chandler, Daniel (1990). "Do the write thing?". Electric Word. 17: 27–30.
    
11. 
    Chandler, Daniel (1992). "The phenomenology of writing by hand". Intelligent Tutoring Media. 3 (2/3): 65–74. doi:10.1080/14626269209408310.
    
12. 
    Chandler, Daniel (1993). "Writing strategies and writers' tools". English Today: The International Review of the English Language. 9 (2): 32–38. doi:10.1017/S0266078400000341. S2CID 143671576.
    
13. 
    Chandler, Daniel (1994). "Who needs suspended inscription?". Computers and Composition. 11 (3): 191–201. doi:10.1016/8755-4615(94)90012-4.
    
14. 
    Chandler, Daniel (1995). The Act of Writing: A Media Theory Approach. Aberystwyth: Prifysgol Cymru.
    
15. 
    Reiter, Ehud; Dale, Robert (2000). Building Natural Language Generation Systems. Cambridge UP. ISBN 9780511519857.
    
16. 
    O'Hara, Kenton P.; Taylor, Alex; Newman, William; Sellen, Abigail J. (2002). "Understanding the materiality of writing from multiple sources". Int. J. Human-Computer Studies. 56: 269–305.
    
17. 
    Anderson, Jack (2008). "The Collection and Organization of Written Knowledge". In Bazerman, Charles (ed.). Handbook of Research on Writing: History, Society, School, Individual, Text. New York: L. Erlbaum Associates. pp. 177–190. ISBN 978-0-8058-4870-0. OCLC 124074929.
    
18. 
    Wells, H. G. (1922). A Short History of the World. p. 41.
    
19. 
    Bazerman, Charles (2013). "Literacy and the Organization of Society". A Theory of Literate Action, Vol. 2 (PDF). Anderson, SC: Parlor Press. p. 193. ISBN 978-1-60235-477-7. Archived (PDF) from the original on 22 August 2020. Retrieved 27 August 2020.
    
20. 
    Green, M.W. (1981). "The Construction and Implementation of the Cuneiform Writing System". Visible Language. 15 (4): 345–372. ISSN 0022-2224.
    

1^ https://blog.skolera.com/importance-blooms-taxonomy/

2^ https://blog.skolera.com/importance-blooms-taxonomy/