Introduction
Most professional educators on the primary and secondary levels recognize the concept of “Bloom’s Taxonomy.” It is generally understood as a means of determining the degree of sophistication achieved by students in their apprehension of a discipline.
Over the last few decades, in addressing the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) crisis, Engineering schools have been taken to task in terms of the scope and sequence, quality, and efficacy of their programs of study by their accrediting body (click ABET to learn more). One of the innovations to have been introduced in their analysis of the process of developing a successful engineering program is the concept of Bloom’s Taxonomy of the degrees of complexity in intellectual ability (Click here to read a paper on the application to Engineering Curricula and here to see the matrix of engineering verbs associated with each Bloom’s taxon).
At the primary and secondary level, STEM teachers are tasked with the objective of preparing capable problem solvers equipped to transition to these post-secondary engineering programs. It would therefore be of value for primary and secondary instructors to familiarize themselves with the degrees of complexity evident in an individual’s growth in problem solving.
Teachers must themselves understand, to some (growing) extent, the problem solving process and the stages of complexity involved. How can they teach unless they are themselves (self) aware?
The following diagnostic is a first draft attempt at diagnosing the degree of engineering/problem solving sophistication of the reader (teacher and/or students) based on verbs as classified and correlated to Bloom’s by R. McBeath and as described by McGourty, Besterfield-Sacre, Shuman, Wolfe, et al.
Click here to begin the diagnostic