My post from last month, 'Bloom's blooms', appears to have been attracting some attention. I'd like to say that the readers were as moths drawn to the flame of my intellect. Sadly, far more likely is the fact that there's a link to it from Steve Wheeler's popular (and excellent) blog. He describes the diagram on the left as a matrix but, as I commented on his post, it's not a matrix, it's a mystic rose.
Mystic rose is a mathematical term for the pattern that results when a number of equidistant points are marked around a circle and then a line is drawn from each point to every other point. There's a very neat little animated demonstrator here. For those interested in derivations, the name seems to come from the patterns' resemblance to the rose windows to be found in many cathedrals.
I've re-drawn my diagram to more clearly emphasize the interconnections which I feel exist between the thinking skills but which Steve and, I guess, others hadn't noticed in my previous version . Like him I'm unhappy about the simplistic linear approach the taxonomy uses, though as a teacher I find the simplicity useful as a way of remembering to provide a range of a learning activities.
@debsnet described my model as a reimagining 'interconnected, synergistic, synaptic' - which certainly sounds pretty cool even if I'm not entirely sure what it means. Her tweet set bells ringing, however, when I realised there was a cognitive skill that appears to be missing - imagining. As I looked at each term in turn to be sure it wasn't a sub-skill of one or other I decided that imagining was actually a feature of them all. But the more I think about it the more I begin to wonder whether imagination isn't the thing that joins them all together. If, as seems to be generally accepted, creating is the highest order thinking skill (using, as it does all the other skills) it would be small wonder that imagination is so frequently emphasized as an important condition for being creative. Imagination is creativity's supply line.
What do you think?