Thinking about Thinking

Today was the first day of school for teachers in my district. (I'm a teacher-librarian.) Like most in-services, this one touched on more effective teaching methods, and cited Bloom's Taxonomy. Bloom's Taxonomy is an organization of "higher order thinking skills" going from basic memory and recall at the bottom, to creation or evaluation at the top (evaluation is the traditional top, creation is at the top of the revised taxonomy). Here's a graphic from Miami of Ohio Office of Community Engagement:

It occurred to me that this also applied to the construction of deep knowledge in the SCA, particularly in applied Arts and Sciences. Let's use embroidery as a "for instance". When we begin looking at embroidery, we may begin by learning about the extant pieces. We can name them, locate them, and maybe find new ones. We are at the stage of "knowledge". We may then begin examining them more closely- maybe we identify the stitches being used, and maybe we figure out how the object was made. We may share this knowledge with others, demonstrating our "comprehension" of the subject. When we actually make a replica of an object, we've moved up to "application" of our comprehension. We don't just own the information, we've used the knowledge to construct something similar. Now this is where it gets tricky. What, exactly, is the difference between "application" and "creation/synthesis"? Well, it really depends on the next step, "analysis". Without a thorough analysis of the subject as a whole, one cannot truly synthesize their knowledge. Without an understanding of time and place, motifs, themes, and styles, one is left only applying their knowledge, instead of synthesizing it into a new creation.

At the top of the pyramid is synthesis and evaluation. These two really do go hand in hand. Without a critical eye (and I mean constructively critical) one cannot truly create a period artifact. One needs to evaluate what is (and is not!) there in the object before one can make informed choices about the object one is about to create.

So, in slightly simpler terms, using embroidery as a metaphor:

Knowledge: There is a polychrome coif in the Met, acquistion number 64.101.1258.

Comprehension: It's worked in detached buttonhole and plaited braid stitches.Motifs are birds, butterflies, roses, lillies, cornflowers.

Application: Experimenting shows that outlining the flowers first in stem stitch makes it easier to do the detached buttonhole evenly. Starting with a row of running stitches stops me from making too many buttonhole stitches.

Analysis: These flowers are all found in an English kitchen garden; many others also use blue borages; the plaited braid is done using gilt thread on the extant examples, whether coif, nightcap, or jacket.

Synthesis and Evaluation: A new design is created, using the most commonly found examples from extant pieces. The designer can explain every decision, without having to cite rare or out-of-period examples. The designer can also note where he or she may have deviated from the extant pieces, and discuss why.

These stages do overlap each other, and constructing deep knowledge is a never-ending process. We always begin with some sort of memory/recall/knowledge of the subject, and tease out comprehension as we apply. But it's in the synthesis and evaluation that one can really begin to achieve some mastery over the subject.

So what do you think about this? Does Bloom's Taxonomy apply to you and your field? How? Should it apply in the SCA? How?