Theories of Critical Thinking - Tyler Rhodes

     When reading these articles, it makes me reflect on the way that technology is used in my math classroom. I know that what we have done has been very surface level such as using Blooket or attempting to go paperless and using our LMS for that purpose. For me, this mainly due to my not knowing how to use technology in a way that is beneficial in the math classroom as many students find it difficult to navigate online tools in order to find answers/solutions quickly without understanding how to get there. This is not to say that there haven't been times where it has been beneficial, such as when I had my honors class take a topic, create an outline and film themselves teaching the topic. It was a good way to see what they were able to come up with production -wise, but also what they really understood as opposed to having them regurgitate steps on paper. I suppose that may tie into the Fullan and Langworthy (2014) article where they mention that "as technology enables them to discover, create and use knowledge in the real world faster, more cheaply and with authentic audiences" (p.4) as, in the traditional classroom, there is very little time for something meaningful like that to be able to happen with random assemblies, assessments, diagnostic testing, ACAP and whatever interruptions may happen during the day. 

    This would also tie into the way that Bloom's Taxonomy and Multiples was talked about in the articles as this showed me that my students, who may not have been able to perform to the best of their abilities on a paper test and, honestly, may have displayed that they did not understand the material, may actually really do understand, they just need a different way to show their abilities as opposed to just traditional methods. I think this would fall somewhere in either applying or synthesizing sections of Bloom's more updated taxonomy (Huitt, 2011). I like that this has, in a way, reminded me of the fact that sometimes, people just need a way that works for them. In some ways, it does make jealous of the other subjects because there are more, in my opinion, ways to use technology to show your learning or help it such as, even as a basic example, Word/Docs being able to suggest and provide feedback on grammar or Canva allowing students to create graphics and these great forms of art that can explain or help visualize what they have learned. Right now, I do not know if this is just a limitation of the subject that I teach or if there are not that many resources currently out there that can do something similar in the math classroom. 

    I really wish that I had more training on these kinds of things, particularly with how to use more technology to best support and promote learning in the classroom, in addition to making sure that they can accurately show that learning. Sometimes, it feels like we are expected to already know how to implement these things from the job because we as the adults are able to use technology for ourselves, when in reality we need some way to know what we can do to blend what we already know with new resources to help bolster those initiatives. I know we can use things like PowerPoint/Google Slides, Canva or YouTube, but it would be nice to see content focused examples that were focused on bridging that "theoretical" school information that we teach to more of a real life applicable form. Overall though, I would say that these articles have given me something to consider as I get ready to plan for next year and have inspired me to do some more research on applicable online tools. I really want to be able to utilize the abilities that students come to me with and really provide them with those deep learning opportunities, so I am excited to see what I will continue to learn to help make that happen. 

References 

Fullan, M. & Langworthy, M. (2014). A rich seam: how new pedagogies find deep learning. London: Pearson. Retrived from https://www.pearson.com/content/dam/one-dot-com/one-dot-com/global/Files/about-pearson/innovation/open-ideas/ARichSeamEnglish.pdf

Huitt, W. (2011). Bloom et al.'s taxonomy of the cognitive domain. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved from http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cognition/bloom.pdf

Theories of Critical Thinking-Abbi Underwood

 Theories of Critical Thinking 

Bringing Depth and Innovation to Digital Learning Spaces 

Abbi Underwood

    As educators navigating a rapidly evolving digital world, we must recognize how technology is not just an accessory to learning. It is a catalyst for deep learning. Fullan and Langworthy (2014) argue that new pedagogies must move beyond surface-level content delivery to foster skills like problem-solving, collaboration, and citizenship. This resonates with my current work in online education, where I strive to design instruction that encourages students to engage meaningfully rather than passively click through material. Kuhn (2008) echoes this need for balance between depth and breadth, reminding Educators that the goal is not to cover every standard superficially, but to guide students in developing a deeper understanding of fewer, more impactful concepts. 

    Bloom's Taxonomy, as outlined by Huitt (2011), continues to be a crucial framework for shaping this kind of engagement. I see this daily with my students. Those who move beyond remembering and understanding into analyzing and creating tend to retain information better and show greater confidence. By embedding tech tools that support higher-order thinking, like collaborative writing platforms, coding simulations, and multimedia storytelling apps, we can scaffold students' growth across Bloom's cognitive levels. However, this integration of tech also depends on the willingness and ability of educators to adopt the innovations. 

    That is where Rogers' (1963) Diffusion of Innovations theory offers valuable insight. Whether it's teachers adopting new platforms, or students learning to evaluate media critically (as Hobbs, 2011 suggests), understanding the stages of adoption helps me support both peers and students. Some coworkers are innovators, eager to try every new tool. Others fall into the late majority or even laggard category, requiring personalized coaching and evidence of success before embracing change. Recognizing these types helps me offer differentiated professional development and support in our school community. 

    Ultimately, digital literacy is not just about knowing how to use technology, it is about using it wisely to foster curiosity, critical thinking, and communication. As we implement tools that nurture deep learning, we also have a responsibility to model discernment and adaptability, which are skills that will serve our students far beyond the classroom. 

References

Fullan, M., & Langworthy, M. (2014). A rich seam: How new pedagogies find deep learning (Executive Summary, Chapters 1–2). Pearson. https://www.pearson.com/content/dam/one-dot-com/one-dot-com/global/Files/about-pearson/innovation/open-ideas/ARichSeamEnglish.pdf

Hobbs, R. (2011). Empowering learners with digital and media literacy. Knowledge Quest, 39(5), 12–17.

Huitt, W. (2011). Bloom et al.'s taxonomy of the cognitive domain. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta State University. http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cognition/bloom.pdf

Kuhn, M. S. (2008). Connecting depth and balance in class. Learning & Leading with Technology, 36(1), 18–21.

Rogers, E. M. (1963). The adoption process II. Journal of Cooperative Extension, 1(2), 69–75. https://archives.joe.org/joe/1963summer/1963-2-a2.pdf

Theories of Critical Thinking- Kaitlyn Woodall

 As a first-grade teacher, I’m always looking for better ways to help my students learn, especially with technology. I am currently working on a masters in Instructional Technology. In A Rich Seam by Fullan and Langworthy, they talk about “deep learning,” where students work together, use technology, and solve real-world problems. This made me think about how I can go beyond worksheets and have students use tools like drawing apps, story creators, or educational games that make learning exciting and meaningful. Bloom’s Taxonomy, explained by Huitt, helps me plan lessons that move from simple thinking (like remembering) to more complex thinking (like creating). For example, my students might first learn about animals, then create their own digital animal by drawing a sketch or using an animation app. These tools help students be more active in their learning. I want to teach them not just to memorize facts but to think and create. I believe there is a right and wrong way to use technology in the classroom. Using it as a tool instead of a time filler is key to students' success. 

In the article by Hobbs, she talks about helping kids become smart with digital media — not just using it, but understanding it. This really connects with my classroom. Even though my students are young, they are already using tablets and watching videos, so I try to guide them to ask questions like, “Who made this?” or “What is this trying to tell me?” Kuhn’s article supports this by reminding teachers to keep a balance. We shouldn’t use technology just to use it — it should help students go deeper into the subject. Sometimes we use a fun video to introduce a lesson but then talk about what we saw and what we learned. This keeps the focus on thinking, not just screen time. Students are eager to try new things so it is my job as a teacher to introduce media tools that will play a role in the students truly understanding technology. 

Reading Rogers’ article on the Diffusion of Innovations helped me understand why some people are quick to try new technology and others aren’t. I see myself as an early adopter — I like to try out new apps or teaching tools and see how they work with my students. Sometimes it’s a little messy, but we learn a lot. I at least have an overview of how it should work and if I see it fit for my students we work through the difficulties together and use them as a learning moment. Students have to know how to use technology through the bad times too. Some of my coworkers wait until they see something working before, they try it, which Rogers calls the “early majority.” His model helped me understand that everyone has a different comfort level with change. I also notice this with students — some jump right in with new things and others need more time and support. Knowing this helps me be more patient and supportive. Whether I’m helping students or working with teachers, I try to meet people where they are and help them grow at their own pace.

Fullan, M., & Langworthy, M. (2014). A rich seam: How new pedagogies find deep learning. Pearson. 

Hobbs, R. (2011). Empowering learners with digital and media literacy. Knowledge Quest.

Huitt, W. (2011). Bloom et al.'s taxonomy of the cognitive domain. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta State University. http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cognition/bloom.html

Kuhn, M. S. (2008). Connecting depth and balance in class. Learning & Leading with Technology.

Rogers, E. M. (1963). The adoption process II. Journal of Cooperative Extension.

Theories of Critical Thinking- Petty

    In today’s educational environment, there are many opportunities for students to gain more knowledge than at any point in human history. Students walk around with a computer in their hands in the form of a cell phone or a school provided device that gives them immediate access to a wealth of information and knowledge at instant speeds. Teachers and students have to work together at a time that is very uncertain for many administrators and teachers in the profession. In my experience there has been a push back to “a more traditional approach of learning” with “paper and pencil” being the standard and the norm in teaching strategies. This is not my opinion. I agree with the ideas behind Deep Learning and Bloom’s Taxonomy (especially as it relates to technology integration in the classroom) as it pertains to teacher efficacy as well as providing a classroom environment that is conducive for proper use of technology in the classroom.   

    In Fullan and Langworthy’s A Rich Seam: How New Pedagogies Find Deep Learning from 2014 old and new, pedagogies were contrasted by pedagogical approach and technology integration. This idea is elaborated on within the article explaining how a teacher’s effectiveness was determined on their ability to deliver direct instruction within their content area (Fullan & Langworthy, 2014). However, according to Fullan and Langworthy, “the foundation of teacher quality is a teacher’s pedagogical capacity – their repertoire of teaching strategies and their ability to form partnerships with students in mastering the process of learning. Technology in the new model is pervasive and it is used to discover and master content knowledge and to enable the deep learning goals of creating and using new knowledge in the world.” (Fullan & Langworthy, 2014). This information is the summation of my belief as it relates to my job in the classroom. As a chemistry teacher, it is important to not rely on direct instruction fully as students do not have the opportunity to immerse themselves in the content at a deeper level by engaging with the topic hands on and presenting their mastery in multiple ways. Students must engage in the content and relate it to their world. Technology definitely serves a significant purpose in this venture and provides students an opportunity to show mastery in ways that previously they may not have been able to. Examples of this for me would be physical or virtual labs or inquiry based learning, where students are the driving force behind their learning and I am in the role of a supporting facilitator. I can accomplish this through online AI generated programs that specifically accommodate each student’s needs or I can provide a simple Phet simulation activity to preface a topic.  It would be irresponsible for me to think as the educator that this could be the only type of instruction in my classroom as direct instruction has its time and place; however, it can not set up shop full time in the classroom. The mixing of pedagogical strategies along with student engagement in their learning provide the best results of retention. 

    Along with Deep Learning, Bloom’s Taxonomy plays a key role in my beliefs as a classroom teacher as it relates to technology. It is my belief that technology when employed correctly will provide a student with the necessary tools to obtain the higher level orders of learning. According to the article referencing Bloom’s Taxonomy, “The levels are understood to be successive, so that one level must be mastered before the next level can be reached” (Huitt, 2011). In my view technology can take a student from application to synthesis by a simple means. In my chemistry class, a student may be able to proficiently apply the information related to intermolecular forces as it is needed to answer higher depth of knowledge questions correctly; however if a student were to make an information graphic explaining with images the differences among the forces, the student is able to provide an argument that they are synthesizing materials for fellow students to be able to understand the material from student led instruction. This along with the ideas of types of adopters from Everett Rogers coincide. As teachers we must be at the forefront of changes as it relates to our field. Our students are different than they were ten years ago. They have a different skill set, they have different ideas about their future and what they want for their life, their ideas and values may be different too. As educators we have to remember what Mr. Everett was saying back in 1963. To look at the chart in the published article, it summarizes characteristics as well as values and social relationships (Everett, 1963). When it comes to technology integration as well as understanding the value that it has in our students’ lives, we as educators must fall in line with the “Innovators”, “Early Adopters”, and “Early Majority” at the latest (Everett 1963). To adopt after the Early Majority group with our students is to not know our students at all. It is our job and responsibility to know our students and provide them a path in a world that may or may not be foreign to us, and we must encourage our colleagues to feel the same to be able to increase their effectiveness in their content as well.

References:

Fullan, M. & Langworthy, M. (2014). A rich seam: How new pedagogies find deep learning. London: Pearson. Retrieved from https://www.pearson.com/content/dam/one-dot-com/one-dot-com/global/Files/about-pearson/innovation/open-ideas/ARichSeamEnglish.pdf

Huitt, W. (2011). Bloom et al.'s taxonomy of the cognitive domain. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved from http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cognition/bloom.pdf  

Rogers, E. M. (1963). The adoption process II. Journal of Cooperative Extension, 1(2), 69-75. Retrieved from https://archives.joe.org/joe/1963summer/1963-2-a2.pdf

Theories of Critical Thinking - Sunshine Williamson

 

After reading these articles, I feel even more excited about using technology in my SSC 101- First Year Experience class that I teach in the fall semester. Since I’m an Academic Advisor, I get the opportunity to teach this class every year.  I’ve used quite a bit of technology before and have found that it helps students learn in deeper and more personal ways. This has been an adjustment for me since I tend to be a little old school with teaching students.  The articles reminded me that learning should match how students think and work today and not what works best for me. First-year college students are already using a great deal of technology in their everyday lives, so bringing that into the classroom helps them stay engaged better and see how what their learning matters. As Kuhn (2008) noted, “One cannot help but meet a variety of learning styles, with experiential depth, if technology is purposefully and wisely integrated into the regular day-to-day curriculum” (p. 20).

I liked the way the articles talked about Bloom’s Taxonomy and Multiple Intelligences. They helped me remember that students don’t all learn the same way and that is okay. Some learn by writing, others by watching videos or working in groups. I am a hands-on learner while I have a daughter that is an auditory learner and needs to hear what she learns with the help of music.  In SSC 101, I can use tools like Canva for projects, discussion boards for reflections, or short video check-ins to reach different learning styles. Kuhn (2008) pointed out that technology can help even beginning teachers “provide more depth and learning-style differentiation if they effectively use educational technology to teach” (p. 21). This helps students not only remember the information but also understand how to use it in real life.

It also made me think about my daughter, who teaches Family and Consumer Science to 7th and 8th graders. She uses technology in creative ways, like having students make digital posters about baby-sitting, record cooking tutorials for TikTok, and use Google Slides to explain sewing projects. Her students using the embroidery machine or sublimation machine is also learning and using technology.  Her students love it because they get to be hands-on and use tools that feel natural to them and also learn new tools that prepare them for careers. This reminds me of Hobbs (2011), who wrote that “easy access to so many information and entertainment choices now requires that people acquire new knowledge and skills to make wise and responsible decisions” (p. 14). Her classroom shows that even young students can become strong with technology when guided well.

I feel encouraged to use technology more on purpose in SSC 101 starting Fall 2025 not just because it’s so popular now, but because it helps students connect, grow, and take charge of their learning. I want them to feel confident in school, understand how to use resources, excite them and create a hunger to learn more, and to see how their learning connects to the real world. These articles gave me ideas and reminded me that combining strong teaching with the right technology can make a big difference in how students are engaging with their learning. 

 

References

Hobbs, R. (2011). Empowering learners and media literacy. Knowledge Quest, 39(5), 14–17.

Kuhn, M. S. (2008). Connecting depth and balance in class. Learning & Leading with Technology, 36(1), 18–21.

Theories of Critical Thinking- Kaylee Howard

 Theories of Critical Thinking

Kaylee Howard

          The modern educational setting requires an advancement of pedagogical practices and technology integration to meet the needs of all learners and equip them with necessary skills for their future endeavors. My experience as a first-grade educator has proven this perspective through the need of an advancement of digital tools used in daily lessons. Furthermore, as I prepare for my future role as a school librarian, I have become more aware of new resources that provide enhanced digital literacy tactics for everyday application across the educational setting. Including these connected foundations across education itself provides for more apt learners who are equipped with necessary skills for engaging in today’s digital world (Kuhn, 2018). After reading the five assigned articles, support and resources calling for the implementation of a connected, digitally supported environment was presented.

     Within today’s educational realm, an onslaught of “new pedagogies” have emerged from the influx of enhanced digital tools and resources (Fullan & Langworthy, 2014, pp.14). These changes have included new methodologies of how instruction is presented and assessed throughout the educational setting. Many of these methods have been learned and implemented in my own classroom as I have taken required courses and trainings to prepare for implementing sufficient instruction for my first-grade students. This new model of digitally focused education is formatted on a large scale move towards providing abilities and tools for increased digital access to students. Because much of modern citizenship across the world requires fluency and literacy in utilizing digital tools, an education in digital literacy is now fundamentally required to provide success for students in the world around them (Hobbs, 2011). This digital literacy requirement has even been shown in lower elementary, where students are required to take state-mandated tests on a digital device. This requirement leads to the need for digital instruction in order to prepare students for the ever-digital world they live in.

     While this ever-changing format of instructional tactics is poised at meeting the needs of all learners, it comes with different challenges and questions, too. An analysis of Bloom’s Taxonomy presents the need for engaging all levels of thought processing throughout instruction (Huitt, 2011). Traditional teaching methods generally assessed learners at the lower levels of the Taxonomy, focusing on knowledge and comprehension. Newer methods of digital instruction have shown in influx of learning that reaches the more advanced levels of learning. The creation of a multitude of new digital resources has allowed educators to meet the needs of all learning styles with technology infused in instruction. In today’s educational environment, a support provided for multiple taxonomies has been allowed and prepared for throughout planning of instruction and implementation of digital tools (Kuhn, 2008). This has been observed in my own educational career. While conducting weekly lesson plans and implementing instructional tactics, a thoughtful and intentional use of digital tools has been included in my pedagogical practices. These tools have allowed me to meet needs of learners who may be missed through traditional methods of instruction. 

     In the modern classroom, technology is not optional. The implementation of these resources may vary from educator to educator (Rogers, 1963), but the requirement of their use still stands. To best prepare our learners for the increasingly digital world around them, digital literacy must be fundamental in daily instructional practices.

References: 

Fullan, M. & Langworthy, M. (2014). A Rich Seam: How New Pedagogies Find Deep Learning. London: Pearson. Retrieved from https://www.pearson.com/content/dam/one-dot-com/one-dot-com/global/Files/about-pearson/innovation/open-ideas/ARichSeamEnglish.pdf 

Hobbs, R. (2011). Empowering Learners with Digital and Media Literacy. Knowledge Quest, 39(5), 12-17. Retrieved from Alabama Search Premiere Database.  

 Huitt, W. (2011). Bloom et al.'s Taxonomy of the Cognitive Domain. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved from http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cognition/bloom.pdf    

Kuhn, M. S. (2008). Connecting Depth and Balance in Class. Learning & Leading with Technology, 36(1), 18-21. Retrieved from Academic Search  

Rogers, E. M. (1963). The Adoption Process II. Journal of Cooperative Extension, 1(2), 69-75. Retrieved from https://archives.joe.org/joe/1963summer/1963-2-a2.pdf 

Theories of Critical Thinking - Kyle Kilgore

 In today’s classrooms, meaningful learning goes far beyond memorizing facts, it requires deep engagement, collaboration, and the ability to think critically about information. Fullan and Langworthy’s (2014) theory of Deep Learning emphasizes student-driven exploration through real-world tasks that use technology as a tool for discovery and creation. For students, this means moving from passive learning to active problem-solving, research, and digital content creation. As a result, students develop stronger digital literacy skills and become more confident, independent learners. For classmates and peers, this approach encourages teamwork and digital collaboration, making learning more interactive and socially engaging.

Teachers and coworkers are also deeply affected by how learning is structured. Bloom’s Taxonomy (as explained by Huitt, 2011) provides a valuable framework for designing instruction that moves students through levels of thinking, from remembering and understanding to applying, analyzing, and creating. When educators plan with these cognitive stages in mind, especially in tech-integrated environments, it helps coworkers and peers better support one another in pushing students toward higher-level digital skills. Whether you're a teacher developing rubrics with colleagues or a student giving peer feedback in a project, Bloom’s model creates a shared understanding of learning expectations that enhances digital fluency for everyone involved.

However, adopting technology and new instructional strategies doesn’t happen at the same pace for everyone. Rogers’ (1963) Diffusion of Innovations theory explains how change spreads within a community or organization, and why some embrace new tools while others resist. Among your coworkers or classmates, you’ll likely notice the five adopter types: innovators who try new tech first, early adopters who recognize value early, the early and late majority who follow once it’s proven effective, and laggards who are slow to change. Recognizing where individuals fall in this adoption curve helps create realistic expectations and allows for targeted support. For example, tech-savvy students might lead group work using digital platforms, while others need guided practice to build confidence. Teachers might introduce tools in phases to help colleagues feel supported rather than overwhelmed.

Together, these theories help explain how technology and digital literacy can be successfully integrated into teaching and learning. When we aim for deep learning, use Bloom’s Taxonomy to guide instruction, and understand how innovation spreads, we create a more inclusive, collaborative, and effective environment. This benefits everyone, students become engaged creators, classmates grow as digital thinkers, and coworkers build shared practices that keep pace with the demands of a digital age.

Fullan, M., & Langworthy, M. (2014). A rich seam: How new pedagogies find deep learning. Pearson. 

Hobbs, R. (2011). Empowering learners with digital and media literacy. Knowledge Quest, 39(5), 12–17.

Huitt, W. (2011). Bloom et al.'s taxonomy of the cognitive domain. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta State University. http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cognition/bloom.html

Kuhn, M. S. (2008). Connecting depth and balance in class. Learning & Leading with Technology, 36(1), 18–21.

Rogers, E. M. (1963). The adoption process II. Journal of Cooperative Extension, 1(2), 69–75.

Theories of Critical Thinking - Léah Spears

We are in a new era of learning. Technology is at the forefront of our everyday lives, and it is imperative that all stakeholders adopt the use of technology. According to Fullan and Langworthy, “Digital tools and resources have forced education to revamp its pedagogical practices” (2014). I know this is true for my classroom. When I first started teaching in 2017, my classroom had a limited amount of technology. I used my microphone and speaker to play music, and I would use the projector to show health videos. Digital access makes it possible for students to apply concepts beyond the boundaries of their schools (Fullan and Langworthy, 2014). Fast forward to 2025, I use a view board to display standards, learning targets, and success criteria. I use the view board as a reference key for students when we play games or have activity stations. I also use the view board for instant activities for K-2nd students, and my students in grades 3rd-8th have 1 to 1 device that they take to each class and take home. 

Unfortunately, I still come across some educators who are late majority and/or laggards. They are stuck in the 20th century style of education. Their assessments are arranged to assess students’ knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation, which is the original Bloom’s Taxonomy. In addition, these teachers normally shy away from the use of technology. However, Bloom’s Taxonomy has been revised. Assessing knowledge became recalling, comprehension became understanding, application became applying, and analysis became analyzing. Synthesis and evaluation were changed to evaluating and creating. According to Huitt, “They are both on the highest level of the problem-solving process. If either is omitted, effective learning declines” (2011). Therefore, Bloom’s Taxonomy is still relevant and needed in education, but it must be integrated with other teaching methods. 

Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences means that people are intelligent in many ways. For example, some learners are logical and good at math. Others are kinesthetic learners. Some are interpersonal, visual/spatial, verbal/linguistic, and intrapersonal learners. For the last 5 years, my school has been working with the district’s STEM/STEAM department to help turn my school into a STEAM school. STEAM is an educational framework that integrates science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics. As educators, we were tasked to create PBL lesson plans. PBL can stand for Project-Based Learning or Problem-Based Learning. Both are student-centered instructional approaches that encourage active learning through real-world challenges or problems. This is an example of using depth and multiple intelligence. Therefore, combining Bloom’s taxonomy with Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences is essential for deepening learning. 

Having technology in the classroom is important, but as educators it is vital that we empower our students with the skills to understand digital and media literacy. Learners need access to relevant and credible information that helps them make life decisions (Hobbs, 2011). For example, I administer a nutrition project every year for my middle school students. I created a digital grocery store where my students have to grocery shop online for a month. Engagement in current events like this may help build conductions between the classroom and the real world (Hobbs, 2011). My students get the opportunity to learn budgeting skills. In addition, they learn the cost of food and how to read food labels. According to Hobbs, “This type of engagement helps learners see how the news and current events are constructed by those with economic, political and cultural interest at stake (2011). As stakeholders we must learn to minimize the negative dimension of digital and media literacy by maximizing the positive characteristics of technology.

References

Fullan, M. & Langworthy, M. (2014). A rich seam: How new pedagogies find deep learning. London: Pearson. Retrieved from https://www.pearson.com/content/dam/one-dot-com/one-dot-com/global/Files/about-pearson/innovation/open-ideas/ARichSeamEnglish.pdf 

Hobbs, R. (2011). Empowering learners with digital and media literacy. Knowledge Quest, 39(5), 12-17. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

Huitt, W. (2011). Bloom et al.'s taxonomy of the cognitive domain. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved from http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cognition/bloom.pdf

Theories of Critical Thinking-Jason Boatman

 

Bloom's Taxonomy

Teachers are responsible for providing students with knowledge of content they want them to ultimately know. The order of importance or hierarchy is determined by the teacher, and the emphasis is placed on the content or skills accordingly. In the physical education classroom, building the proper skills in order is extremely important. Students are told how to perform a skill, shown how to perform the skill And then our ass to perform and ultimately apply those skills within a game. In bloom’s taxonomy it is very evident of its use in the physical education classroom.

Find Deep Learning

The school world has changed tremendously over the last decade. Teachers have had to adapt to the ever-changing landscape of the digital world. In order to provide the student students with the proper skills necessary, teachers must be willing to learn and adapt with the times as well. Teachers must strategize on the best ways to use digital and media literacy skills in order to prepare their students for the world after school. With so many sources available, teachers must keep pace and adapt to apply specific strategies to fit each students needs and skill sets.

Connecting Depth and Balance in Class

To further apply the strategies for each students needs. Connecting depth and balance in class points specifically to lesson plan analysis. Examples are given on how schools use technology to modify to specific learning styles and integrated into the curriculum. They explained that the more in depth a teacher can get with Different tools. The more far reaching the resources will be. This results in meeting the needs and learning styles of more students. This again ties back into Blooms Taxonomy.

Resources

Fullan, M. & Langworthy, M. (2014). A rich seam: How new pedagogies find deep learning. London: Pearson.  https://www.pearson.com/content/dam/one-dot-com/one-dot-com/global/Files/about-pearson/innovation/open-ideas/ARichSeamEnglish.pdf

Kuhn, M. S. (2008). Connecting depth and balance in class. Learning & Leading with Technology, 36(1), 18-21. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

Huitt, W. (2011). Bloom et al.'s taxonomy of the cognitive domain. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved from http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cognition/bloom.pdf.

Theories of Critical Thinking by Bailey Arnaud

 Bloom’s Taxonomy- As a Health and Physical Education teacher at the high school level, the psychomotor domain of Bloom’s Taxonomy is the easiest domain to assess. In the gym, we are constantly evaluating students’ psychomotor domain because of the nature of the class. How does a PE teacher measure the affective and cognitive domains? The traditional way to assess the cognitive domain is through a written test. There are alternative ways to assess the cognitive domain through exit slips, game performance assessment instrument, and sport education model rubrics. To assess the affective domain in a PE setting, the teacher will need to determine important components of the sport you are teaching (e.g., cooperation, fair play, caring, etc.). Most Physical Education teachers concentrate on the psychomotor domain and neglect the cognitive and affective domains. Physical Education should include assessments in all three learning domains.

Diffusion of Innovations/Types of Adopters- When artificial intelligence first came out, many people were skeptical about the technological innovation who would fall under the late majority adopter category. Especially in the world of education, AI can be a scary thing. However, being a teacher and a student, I have seen how co-workers, classmates, and students have adopted artificial intelligence into their craft at different rates falling mostly into the early majority category. I noticed that many students were talking about ChatGPT and other AI platforms (innovators or early adopters) and then it slowly dispersed to older groups of people such as teachers and co-workers using these programs. Just like the weed spray to the farmers, AI makes our lives easier. However, easier is not always better. I have seen professors acknowledge the advantages of AI but have put parameters around student usage. They are aware that it is not going away so people have embraced the concept while implementing policies to be sure that students are learning the material needed.

Deep Learning- Technology in the classroom has become a huge advantage for both students and teachers. Not only are teachers able to use a variety of ways to present information, but students are also able to learn in a variety of ways. We see technology everywhere in our day-to-day lives, and children are beginning to use it at younger ages. It only makes sense to use the technological advantages of the world to make our classrooms better equipped to teach all learners and keep students’ attention. I think the “Connecting Depth and Balance in Class” article had some incredible examples of teachers using technology to their advantage and would like to begin thinking about how I can personally use educational technology tools to make my classroom the best place to learn.

Resources

Fullan, M. & Langworthy, M. (2014). A rich seam: How new pedagogies find deep learning. London: Pearson.  https://www.pearson.com/content/dam/one-dot-com/one-dot-com/global/Files/about-pearson/innovation/open-ideas/ARichSeamEnglish.pdf

Hobbs, R. (2011). Empowering learners with digital and media literacy. Knowledge Quest, 39(5), 12-17. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

Huitt, W. (2011). Bloom et al.'s taxonomy of the cognitive domain. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved from http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cognition/bloom.pdf.

Kuhn, M. S. (2008). Connecting depth and balance in class. Learning & Leading with Technology, 36(1), 18-21. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

Rogers, E. M. (1963). The adoption process II. Journal of Cooperative Extension, 1(2), 69-75. Retrieved from https://archives.joe.org/joe/1963summer/1963-2-a2.pdf.