The big 6 was chosen for its ease of use.
By asking the six questions with its two sub-headings, I found that the critical assessment of the ICT tool was increased to synthesis. Eric Frangenheim (2007, p. 35) states that students need to challenge the information; to become a thinking class.
McMillan and Weyers (2009) state that using "blooms taxonomy" is also a valid method to organise my thoughts from low thinking analyses to high.
I have chosen both the big 6, and blooms taxonomy to evaluate and synthesise the e-tools.
References
Frangenheim, E. (2007). Reflections on classroom thinking strategies 42 practical strategies to encourage thinking in your classroom. Sydney, NSW: Rodin Education Publishing
Eisenberg, M. (2001) big6 overview. Retrieved from CQUniversity moodle http://www.big6.com/2001/11/19/a-big6%E2%84%A2-skills-overview/
I need a framework to keep track of all the frameworks!! Is it just me or is it like everytime we turn around someone is introducing yet another framework? That is certainly how I was feeling when I was asked to evaluate The Big 6 for eLearning. I agree with your comment about why you chose to use The Big 6 "for its ease of use". It is certainly one of the easier frameworks to use. I see alignments between The Big 6, Blooms and DoL. As I had worked with Blooms and DoL several times in previous courses I chose to evaluate my tools with Productive Pedagogies. Although I have had some experience in a previous course I was forced to analyse the framework on a far deeper level in eLearning. It would be interesting to see how the same tools faired being evaluated by different frameworks.
ReplyDelete