Bloom's Taxonomy for Lifestylers

There are many lessons that I've learned in the years that I've spent teaching. Through most of my career in the classroom, I've worked with young adolescents -- those who are most often called "middle school students" or sometimes "junior high students." It is the passage in a child's educational journey when they must make the leap from concrete to abstract thinking, and for the teacher, it is the time when the sheer volume of material that needs to be conveyed to students becomes almost staggering.

I have found that it is seldom useful, although it is sometimes tempting, to ask students to spend much time defining things. They almost never benefit from looking up lists of vocabulary words and providing "definitions." Surprising as it may seem, the mere act of defining words really does not take them very far toward understanding or comprehension. Almost never, does a student who has spent time looking up a word in the dictionary, become able to effectively use that word in everyday conversation, or to construct meaning in other contexts. If we want kids to "get" the language that we throw at them in the classroom, we have to take them far deeper and wider than just the definitions.

In the world of education, we sometimes talk about the various levels of Bloom's taxonomy. Bloom's taxonomy deals with learning as a leveled scheme of skill attainment, moving from simplest to more and more sophisticated. There are variants of the taxonomic scale, but it is generally described as follows:

1) Knowledge of terminology; specific facts; ways and means of dealing with specifics (defines; describes; enumerates; identifies; labels; lists; matches; names; reads; records; reproduces; selects; states; views).
2) Comprehension: Grasping (understanding) the meaning of informational materials (classifies; cites; converts; describes; discusses; estimates; explains; generalizes; gives examples; makes sense out of; paraphrases; restates (in own words); summarizes; traces; understands).
3) Application: The use of previously learned information in new and concrete situations to solve problems that have single or best answers (acts; administers; articulates; assesses; charts; collects; computes; constructs; contributes; controls; determines; develops; discovers; establishes; extends; implements; includes; informs; instructs; operationalizes; participates; predicts; prepares; preserves; produces; projects; provides; relates; reports; shows; solves; teaches; transfers; uses; utilizes).
4) Analysis: The breaking down of informational materials into their component parts, examining (and trying to understand the organizational structure of) such information to develop divergent conclusions by identifying motives or causes, making inferences, and/or finding evidence to support generalizations (breaks down; correlates; diagrams; differentiates; discriminates; distinguishes; focuses; illustrates; infers; limits; outlines; points out; prioritizes; recognizes; separates; subdivides).
5) Synthesis: Creatively or divergently applying prior knowledge and skills to produce a new or original whole (adapts; anticipates; categorizes; collaborates; combines; communicates; compares; compiles; composes; contrasts; creates; designs; devises; expresses; facilitates; formulates; generates; incorporates; individualizes; initiates; integrates; intervenes; models; modifies; negotiates; plans; progresses; rearranges; reconstructs; reinforces; reorganizes; revises; structures; substitutes; validates).
6) Evaluation: Judging the value of material based on personal values/opinions, resulting in an end product, with a given purpose, without real right or wrong answers.

I am feeling as if the recent conversation that I've had with Sara about differences between her DD relationship and our M/s dynamic has come down to exactly this... Espcecially in her latest summative discussion on the subject, she comes back to the place where I think we started. She writes that, for her:

I suppose the purpose of my question was, of course, in the end to help me flesh out what is the same and what is different in how we each define ourselves.

It isn't about that for me. The definition isn't really a question. It isn't complicated. All that it really takes is a coming to terms, an aquiescence to the truth: I am a masochist and a submissive. Having accepted that as the reality, the definitions are simple to find (The essential feature of sexual masochism is the feeling of sexual arousal or excitement resulting from receiving pain, suffering, or humiliation. The pain, suffering, or humiliation is real and not imagined and can be physical or psychological in nature).

What is more challenging, what takes learning and study and effort, is to understand -- to begin to comprehend and integrate that reality into some sort of sense of self that can be carried in the world with some kind of balance and personal grace. So, the conversations and cogitations in which I engage aren't about defining; they are about developing and extending my own awareness and understanding so that I can DO something with that; so that I can grow past the point of simply knowing what the words mean into a manifestation of the truths of all of that in my life.

I have appreciated the dialog with Sara for its openess. Far too often, when I encounter people that are first approaching questions about "slavery," the discussion is tainted with judgement and disdain which is seldom disguised. I've found none of that in talking about my life with Sara. That has been very good. Our conversation has allowed me to explain and describe and go back to the beginnings without any sense of needing to defend. That has been good for me. I hope, in some small way, that it has also been good for her.

swan