My question for you relates to your comment about Bloom's taxonomy.

My question for you relates to your comment about Bloom's taxonomy. I don't recall your exact words from your keynote address, but I got the sense that you did not see value in using Bloom's framework. When attempting to develop a rubric/guide for teachers to gauge the rigor of their assessments, I considered asking teachers to look at the verbs in the standards that they aligned to each question and determine if the level of thinking required to answer the question matched. (Ideally, the teachers would be dissecting the priority standards first and then writing assessment questions, but alas...) Do you see this as an appropriate use of Bloom's taxonomy? Might there be a better way to assist teachers with being reflective about the quality of the assessments they have written?

Answer: I am not a fan of the 6 levels of Bloom, as they are not hierarchical, a mix of thinking and knowledge (see attached).  Even the Bloom people reworked their model in 2001 and added four levels of cognitive complexity – which is much more aligned to the SOLO taxonomy – which I have been using for many decades.  I would use SOLO.