The Art of Questioning: Using Bloom’s Taxonomy in the Elementary School Classroom
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The stated goal of education is to help students acquire knowledge through comprehension. Because of its potential to promote comprehension and learning, questioning is one of the most influential teaching strategies. Academic research confirms that children develop critical thinking skills through teacher-facilitated questions (Ennis, 1996). Consequently, the purpose of this workshop is to provide pre-service teachers with an opportunity to reflect upon ways of using questioning techniques in the classroom to help challenge students' thinking. In this workshop, pre-service teachers will use a taxonomy for classifying educational objectives originally developed in 1956 by Benjamin Bloom and a group of educational psychologists. This taxonomy consists of six criteria: 1) knowledge, or the recall of information; 2) comprehension, or the understanding of concepts; 3) application, or problem solving; 4) analysis, in which students separate the material into its various components; 5) synthesis, in which students combine elements to form a new structure; and 6) evaluation, or judging the material. Using Bloom’s Taxonomy (1956) and a more recent revision (Anderson, 2006), this workshop will demonstrate the value that meaningful questions have in the development of children's cognitive and critical thinking abilities. Specifically, participants will: (a) develop questionnaires for lessons; (b) reflect upon the rationale for certain types of questions; and (c) generate developmentally appropriate questions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it