Dear Nazia Asad, I asked for better explanation of mentioned terms with very good reason. The roots of Bloom's taxonomy (taxonomies is much better because he - together with his assistants - developed three taxonomies: for cognitive, affective and psychomotor domain) are in behaviourism (Skinner's), and Pavlov's experiments are the very beginning of that learning theory. Secondly, Vygotsky's approach is well-known as a cultural-historical approach and Vygotsky found that the roots of higher order thinking skills (as internal phenomenon) are in child's social activity (an external phenomenon). Social and cultural circumstances are constantly changing, and our mental functioning is adapting to it. Today, Vygotsky's theory is a part of so-called social constructivism. His important terms are ZPD, alomorphic development, and his well-known study is Thought and Language.

To conclude - behaviourism (Bloom's taxonomy) and social constructivism (Vygotsky) could be put in connection, but it's not easy to do. Taxonomy serves as a methodology for development of teaching goals and learning outcomes and it could be useful for describing short-term changes through the learning process, while social constructivism rather explains long-term changes - individual construction of knowledge that was gained through social interaction and with learner's activity.

Well, this is very interesting question.

Can you elaborate your understanding of each conceptual framework?

This will help you think through what each represents, the methodology and the underlying philosophy, and therefore lead you to answer your own question.

Another question I would ask is - why is it necessary to combine the three concepts? What would be the purpose of that? What is your overall argument that you feel you need to bring them together?

Thank you Samantha for your answer. Regarding conceptual frameworks, Cultural Historical Approach (CHA) and Activity Theory(AT) are psychological theories, more, they are meta theories, particularly AT, which deals with the origin and development of psyche, as the result of evolution of living beings, in interaction with the environment. On the other hand, their systemic structural approach to understanding the reality, make easier their applications in virtual learning environments, as structured knowledge is a key premise for formalization.

Taxonomies of Bloom are more specific issues, that can be interpreted (or not) from the point of view of the principles, conceptual system and philosophical foundations of CHA and AT.

And it is necessary, because concepts and categories, describe by Bloom are (at least their denominations) used in both more abstract theories. And because behind those concepts and categories there are concrete research, and might be the relations, systems, regularities found in that system of ideas, can be "linked" with more general systems, and explained from their point of view.

I am trying to unify in a system abstract knowledge, more general, existing in CHA and AT and particular knowledge, expressed in Bloom ideas.

I'm not sure that this terms ''cultural historical approach'' and ''activity theory'' has the common understanding/meaning, and I have the first association to the theory of Lev Vygotsky. Do you consider that theory (Vygotsky's) under the term you mentioned? I mean, do you consider elements such as: ZPD (zone of proximal development), social construction of meaning, alomorphic development etc. If ''yes'', than it's possible to connect Bloom's work with social constructivism, but with a lot of caution. Taxonomies (and that type of setting educational goals and LOs) are better connected with behaviourism than with social constructivism.

Hello

Yes of course

For example you can find digital Bloom and also theory of activity

Ingrid

" In one sentence, Bloom’s Taxonomy is a hierarchical ordering of cognitive skills that can, among countless other uses, help teachers teach and students learn"( https://www.teachthought.com/learning/what-is-blooms-taxonomy-a-definition-for-teachers/ ).

" Activity theory (AT; Russian: Теория деятельности)[1] is an umbrella term for a line of eclectic social sciences theories and research with its roots in the Soviet psychological activity theory pioneered by Lev Vygotsky[2], Alexei Leont'ev and Sergei Rubinstein. These scholars sought to understand human activities as systemic and socially situated phenomena and to go beyond paradigms of reflexology (the teaching of Vladimir Bekhterev and his followers) and classical conditioning (the teaching of Ivan Pavlov and his school), psychoanalysis and behaviorism. It became one of the major psychological approaches in the former USSR, being widely used in both theoretical and applied psychology, and in education, professional training, ergonomics, social psychology and work psychology"( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activity_theory ).

" The cultural-historical approach is the oldest archaeological approach and relies on inductive reasoning. Archaeologists seek to list, catalogue, and date artifacts. The goal of this approach is to use material records to describe the “where” and “when” of past cultures by identifying connections or patterns in culture. They believe cultures adapt primarily as a response to the influences of other cultures. Archaeologists look at how cultural components such as economic, social, political, intellectual, religious, and aesthetic activities shaped past societies"( https://www.coursehero.com/file/p2i8r3l/The-cultural-historical-approach-is-the-oldest-archaeological-approach-and/ ).

Concepts can be borrowed from other disciplines, Bloom's taxonomy mainly deals with cognitive domain, Activity theory is mainly concerned with psychomotor domain, and cultural historical approach is the study of past; we must say that cognitive component can not be separated while performing psychomotor or some reasoning activities; All these Bloom's taxonomy, activity theory and the cultural historiacl approach can be compatible at more abstract level, then new theory will emerge.

Dear Nazia Asad, I asked for better explanation of mentioned terms with very good reason. The roots of Bloom's taxonomy (taxonomies is much better because he - together with his assistants - developed three taxonomies: for cognitive, affective and psychomotor domain) are in behaviourism (Skinner's), and Pavlov's experiments are the very beginning of that learning theory. Secondly, Vygotsky's approach is well-known as a cultural-historical approach and Vygotsky found that the roots of higher order thinking skills (as internal phenomenon) are in child's social activity (an external phenomenon). Social and cultural circumstances are constantly changing, and our mental functioning is adapting to it. Today, Vygotsky's theory is a part of so-called social constructivism. His important terms are ZPD, alomorphic development, and his well-known study is Thought and Language.

To conclude - behaviourism (Bloom's taxonomy) and social constructivism (Vygotsky) could be put in connection, but it's not easy to do. Taxonomy serves as a methodology for development of teaching goals and learning outcomes and it could be useful for describing short-term changes through the learning process, while social constructivism rather explains long-term changes - individual construction of knowledge that was gained through social interaction and with learner's activity.

Well, this is very interesting question.

I prefer this revised taxonomy: http://www.celt.iastate.edu/teaching/effective-teaching-practices/revised-blooms-taxonomy/

I agree with Mats. This is Anderson's and Krathwohl's revision.

Bloom's Taxonomy is a better guide to consistency of understanding, phrasing objectives in a more accurate qualitative fashion. So many times, words are used which are arbitrary, and suggest opinions rather than categorically reasoning. The same principle goes for MESH words - they have to be categorized, not randomly chosen.

Good question, long overdue! I think we have to differentiate between taxonomy as an analytical tool and taxonomy as a design tool for teaching and learning. As an analytical tool, I think it is compatible with Activity Theory Approaches, because it can shed light on the specifics of various actions or can classify learning objectives. However, as a design tool for teaching and learning, it is often misunderstood and misused. When the taxonomy is understood as levels of development, people arrange teaching and learning according to this logic: “First, you have to learn and adequately reproduce lists of terms ...” These are actions that are rarely needed outside Higher Ed. Institutions and the function of these actions in Higher Ed. Institutions (proof of knowledge) thus does not correspond to the function for which it is needed outside Higher Ed. Institutions: solve problems in a specific context. In this respect, the taxonomy is not compatible with acitvity-theoretical concepts, because this approach fosters unnecessarily atomized, additive (surface) learning rather than functional or meaningful acitivities in contexts (deep learning).

This logic, which can be summarized as “first the basic knowledge, then the problems” and which is inadvertently handed down from generation to generation, seems to me to be one of the main problems of Higher Ed. Institutions (in Germany).