Understanding Inverted Bloom's

Thank you for pushing me! I'm really getting it now

Thank you Bonnie Kraxberger and others. Your comments about the Inverted Bloom’s Taxonomy have made me think even more deeply about what I have done with Bloom’s and why I think it works. I will start with Bonnie’s comment on my article. Bonnie writes:

My first thought is that “create” does not equate with “produce”. Plugging in an assignment framework and producing a matching product (the essay in your example) isn’t creative, it’s following a protocol.

While AI can’t remember facts for you, it can tell you what facts are relevant. It seems like you’re reworking information-based connections, not solely inverting Bloom’s Taxonomy.

I admit, I had to think about this deeply (thanks, Bonnie!), and it helped me work some things out about my own concept of teaching with AI.

There are really two versions of creation:

• Creation ex nihilo (Creation out of nothing) and

• Creation ex materia (Creation out of existing matter).

Creation ex nihilo is an astonishing task, one that is far beyond both the comprehension and the ability of humankind. I don't think, with the exception of God, there is creation ex nihilo, and certainly it doesn’t exist in the realm of humanity. In fact, human beings have a problem understanding anything that doesn’t exist because, well, it doesn’t exist. Creation ex nihilo is definitely not what we do when we create.

That leaves us with creation ex materia. So, let's consider that for a moment. When I create, I actually take something that already exists (words, numbers, clay, paint, textiles, etc.), and I combine those things in a novel way to make something that has never existed before either as an idea or as a tactile, physical reality.

For example, a novel turn of phrase may never have existed before in the realm of ideas or words, or a scarf I knitted may have never existed before in the physical world. Or maybe I take something that already existed (Bloom’s Taxonomy) and I flip it on its head and think of it in a new way—which is also a creative act ex materia.

Just as I can do those things, so can a machine, but it must be directed by a human in order to produce the creative output. For example, I might type or speak the novel turn of phrase to share it, but the turn of phrase is based on words, images, or metaphors that already exist in my experience, or I might create the scarf on a knitting machine from an already existing pattern with a different kind of thread or a different color of wool to make it “original,” or I might prompt AI to make an image from an idea that I have (usually based on other things I have seen or known).

So, when I am creating, I am creating from existing material, whether or not a machine is involved. Sometimes I can even create at scale, as there is no requirement of creativity that it be original or novel in all aspects. Sometimes when I create, I am creating something that is only novel in one or two new ways because everything I make and everything I conceive is based on things that already exist with knowledge, talent, or agency I already possess.

Now we get to the sticky part: is my creation without AI any different than my creation with AI? You may say that creation with AI doesn't require the level of talent or effort that creation without AI does, but we aren't speaking about skill here--we are talking about the creative act.

If I were capable of doing magic, would you say that a painting I created with magic was less significant than a painting I had made by hand? You might because you would say that the painting I made by hand required skill and artistry that I didn't need to have in creating a painting by magic, even if the painting I created with magic was ten times better than the one I created by hand.

Now, just for fun, imagine what would happen if all people became magic? What would happen if great artists could make all their paintings by magic—artists who possessed the skill and talent that you so greatly treasured (because they were capable of creating by hand)? Would their magical art be less important or less treasured because they didn’t mix the paint and put it on the canvas with their own hands? Would an artist who suffered with terrible arthritis, who chose to make a work with magic instead of by hand, be less important or less creative? Would that artist’s work be less valuable?

What, then, is the difference between these mythical magical paintings and the paintings that are created by hand?

Is the difference between great creative work and simple “production” of work the skill set and knowledge required to create the work? Is it the skill set that you value as "creation," or is it the physical toil? And, if the physical toil is no longer required to create, and artists choose to create with knowledge and skill but without toil, how do we understand the value of what is created?

Finally, if anyone can create magical art, even students who never possessed the physical skill set to know how to create that art by hand, how do we then build a skill set that pushes those new creators of magical art up to the level of those who have the knowledge and skill to make things by hand but choose to make the art with magic? How can we imbue the new artists with the ability to understand and create with intention?

The concept of inverted Bloom’s addresses the question: If one creates first, what is next?

That understanding of the creation that they have made, that pulling apart of the creative output, is exactly what the Inverted Bloom’s Taxonomy does. When you strip skill and knowledge from creation and the creative act, you need to rearrange the concept of creation to put the labor required for skill and talent after the creative act so that students don’t stop at creation and fail to build the knowledge and skill required for intentionality and agency. In the Inverted Bloom’s Taxonomy, the creator must toil after the creation—to evaluate, analyze, apply, and finally understand and remember what they have done.