Learning and Intellectualism can both be found in the act of comparison, or more broadly, analysis. One must do this perpetually when reading to dissect and gain most (long-term) (syntopical) value out of it.

Elaborative Encoding/Rehearsal; highly useful. Networked thought. See Bloom's and Solo's

QUERY Is there a taxonomy for data, information, insightr, knowledge, ontology, wisdom, cosmic knowing etc?

Meaning...? Genre isn't a taxonomy because taxonomy requires more structured classification?

What do you mean? This taxonomy? which? Does this contradict that it's an intangible taxonomy?

A good summary of how to assess "Caring" objectives

https://research.vu.nl/en/publications/on-the-impact-of-sameas-on-schema-matching

Bloom's taxonomy is actually a list of three (the cognitive one being the most dominant: me thinking this was the only "taxonomy")

There's something interesting lurking here on note taking practice as well.

Generic notes for learning may rephrase or summarize an idea int one's own words and are equivalent to basic information or articles as framed by Clark/Keiger. But in building towards something, that goes beyond the basic, one should strive in their notes to elicit experience and generate insight; take the facts and analyze them, create something new, interesting, and unique.

reply to u/iamharunjonuzi at https://www.reddit.com/r/Zettelkasten/comments/12bvcmn/how_do_i_store_when_coming_across_an_actual_fact/

How central is the fact to what you're working at potentially developing? Often for what may seem like basic facts that are broadly useful, but not specific to things I'm actively developing, I'll leave basic facts like that as short notes on the source/reference cards (some may say literature notes) where I found them rather than writing them out in full as their own cards.

If I were a future biologist, as a student I might consider that I would soon know really well what a cell was and not bother to have a primary zettel on something so commonplace unless I was collecting various definitions to compare and contrast for something specific. Alternately as a non-biologist or someone that doesn't use the idea frequently, then perhaps it may merit more space for connecting to others?

Of course you can always have it written along with the original source and "promote" it to its own card later if you feel it's necessary, so you're covered either way. I tend to put the most interesting and surprising ideas into my main box to try to maximize what comes back out of it. If there were 2 more interesting ideas than the definition of cell in that documentary, then I would probably leave the definition with the source and focus on the more important ideas as their own zettels.

As a rule of thumb, for those familiar with Bloom's taxonomy in education, I tend to leave the lower level learning-based notes relating to remembering and understanding as shorter (literature) notes on the source's reference card and use the main cards for the higher levels (apply, analyze, evaluate, create).

Ultimately, time, practice, and experience will help you determine for yourself what is most useful and where. Until you've developed a feel for what works best for you, just write it down somewhere and you can't really go too far wrong.

Of course, some of the private, individual practice can be terribly formed and generally useless for many, so it becomes imperative that students have some strong modeling here from the rhetorical side. What exactly do "good" and "useful" practices look like? How are these annotations used after-the-fact? What purposes do they serve? Can they be reused? Even with open annotations, there is still a lot of additional practice and use which happens beyond the visible annotation which is hidden.

How can we leverage the open annotation and the following process (for example that of Ahrens2017 or Eco2015, 1977) to show more of the workflows of not only learning/understanding/sensemaking, but then taking that material to apply, analyze, evaluate, and then subsequently create new material?

I see a lot of this sort of community sensemaking in the fora for digital note taking tools like Roam Research, Obsidian, Tana, etc. People there may sometimes be more focused on workflows for productivity sake, but there's a lot of subtle learning about note taking practice which is also going on between the lines.

reply to u/sscheper at https://www.reddit.com/r/antinet/comments/10o4jnl/comment/j6ii64d/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

Is this about as close as Scott Scheper comes to recommending taking Cornell Notes?!? 😂

Let's be honest that this is roughly what this (and Bibcards) ultimately is. You take some general notes on a lecture (book or other material) as a sense making tool to help you better understand the material. You write down some bits you want to remember and use for some brief spaced repetition perhaps. You write down some pointed questions to help review for a test later. The subtle difference is that Cornell notes were designed to do the sense making, summary, and repetition portions well for students and learners, but didn't focus as much on the longer tail of knowledge creation using analysis, and synthesis. To fill in the last mile for your card index, take the best idea(s) (maybe one or two at most) and flesh it out to create a useful maincard.

If it's useful try some 8 x 12" paper for your lecture notes, and take them Bibcard or Cornell Notes style. Once you've excerpted your main card notes, you can fold your sheet in half twice and file it with your Bibcards, naturally taking care to have the paper's spine face up to prevent other slips from becoming lost in between. (This obviously works best for those using 4 x 6" index cards though if you're in the 3 x 5" camp, then use 6" x 10" sheets for folding.) For those with middle grades or high school students, this may be a more profitable method for introducing these methods to their study, learning, and creation patterns.

Summary: Cornell Notes can be an excellent method for capturing session-based fleeting notes and distilling them down into permanent notes. Cornell Notes focus on the lower levels of Bloom's Taxonomy rather than the broader spectrum that a zettelkasten method might.

It is not consistent to distinguish different types of annotations (e.g., using "Annotation" as the general term) and at the same time to call a specific type with the same name. It mixes the general with the specific use.

I propose to use the term "Annotation" as the general term for all different kind of annotations. For the digital equivalent of a marginal note I would use "Marginal Note" as another name. (Just "Note" is not enough as it can't be differentiated from "Page Note".)

Hame yehi chahiye from the linnaeus work

This could be clearer and "growth state" and "contribution state" feel like jargon which muddles:

two of the broad benefits/affordances of having a zettelkasten: - learning and scaffolding knowledge (writing for understanding) - collecting and arranging material for general output

see also: https://boffosocko.com/2022/04/01/the-zettelkasten-method-of-note-taking-mirrors-most-of-the-levels-of-blooms-taxonomy/

t Laurie Voss's crowdsourced set of examples of things that have structure & control in the form of the following: - centralized - hierarchical - federated - distributed - decentralized

Picture below: Link to tweet: https://twitter.com/seldo/status/1486563446099300359?s=20&t=C6z9xUF_YBkOFmfcjfjpUA

Possibly like Holochain (which is distinct from the blockchain architecture). Blockchain only seems helpful if you need all of the following: - a database - immutability - distributed data - decentralized & totally trustless - append only - cryptographically secure assurance

Confer Brandon Enright's provocative talk "Blockchain is Bullshit" for an elaboration of these features. The first 10 or so minutes is mostly uninsightful trolling, so the link takes one to his argument about the key features of blockchain.

AFAICT, Holochain eases the feature of "decentralized", although Laurie Voss suggests that it's better to think of Bitcoin & Ethereum as "distributed" (in both the structure & control).

In Voss' taxonomy, I suspect that Holochain's structure would be "distributed" (ie, "No total point of failure, all nodes work on shared goal") and control would be "federated" (ie, "Limited set of shared rules, multiple overlapping/conflicting rules below")

Writing and refining one's note about an idea can be key to helping one's basic understanding of that idea, but this understanding is dramatically increased by linking it into the rest of one's framework of understanding of that idea. A useful side benefit of creating this basic understanding and extending it is that one can also reuse one's (better understood) ideas to create new papers for expanding other's reading and subsequent understanding.

One of Darwin's most compelling arguments in favour of evolution by means of natural selection was just how many different, apparently unrelated phenomena it explained. One of these was 'Classification' (what we now call taxonomy).

Darwin argued that, when the taxonomists of his day arranged species into hierarchical groups, those tree-like groupings were best explained by genealogical descent.

Now that biological evolution is accepted as a fact, genealogical descent has become the criterion taxonomists use to place species into hierarchical groups. Ironically, Darwin's explanation of taxonomy means it can no longer be used to justify his theory because modern taxonomy is, in effect, defined by his theory.

The strongest tool we have for identifying genealogical descent in species is modern DNA analysis. This has helped identify many mistakes in former, non-DNA-based taxonomic classifications. But DNA analysis can't be used in all cases… For example, we do not have access to DNA samples of the vast majority of extinct species.

Why badges matter! The ability to communicate about competencies with shared meaning. Recognitions that are specific to a given learning environment (getting 90% on a Green Belt Quiz in a professor's class, for example) may be powerful and meaningful within that specific setting, but given the opportunities to establish context around the achievement that is broadly consumable by stakeholders unrelated to that setting, it is self-limiting (and a disservice to learners!) to shelter the recognition to the closed system.

Active reading to the extreme!

What a clever innovation building on the ideas of the art of memory and Raymond Llull's combinatoric arts!

Does this hit all of the areas of Bloom's Taxonomy? I suspect that it does.

How could it be tied more directly into an active reading, annotating, and note taking practice?

More closely associating new ideas to one's own personal life helps to create and expand the context of the learning to what one already knows.

Within the context of Bloom's Taxonomy, doing this shows that one understands and is already applying and even doing a bit of creating, at least internally.

Should 'understanding' come before 'remembering' in Bloom's taxonomy? That seems more logical to me.

Bloom's Taxonomy mirrors the zettelkasten method

(Recall Bloom's Taxonomy: remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, create)

One needs to be able to generally understand an idea(s) to be able to write it down clearly in one's own words. Regular work within a zettelkasten helps to reinforce memory of ideas for understanding and retention. Applying the knowledge to other situations happens almost naturally with the combinatorial creativity that occurs within a zettelkasten. Analysis is heavily encouraged as one takes new information and links it to prior knowledge and ideas; this is also concurrent with the application of knowledge. Being able to compare and contrast two ideas on separate cards is also part of the analysis portions of Bloom's taxonomy which also leads into the evaluation phase. Finally, one of the most important reasons for keeping a zettelkasten is to use it to generate or create new ideas and thoughts and then write them down in articles, books, or other media in a clear and justified manner.

Himalayan Moths pollinating Plant families

This method also presupposes that one is taking notes solely for memorizing facts and helping to support basic understanding.

What about for analysis, comparison, synthesis, generation of entirely new ideas?

The distinctions between being informed and enlightened.

Learning might be defined as the pathway from being informed as a preliminary base on the way to full enlightenment. Pedagogy is the teacher's plan for how to take this path.

How would these definitions and distinctions fit into Bloom's taxonomy?

Note that properly annotating and taking notes into a commonplace book can be a serious (necessary?) step one might take on the way towards enlightenment.

This looks somewhat intriguing:

Krathwohl DR. A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview. Theory Into Practice. 2002;41(4):212–8. _2. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104 | Google Scholar

Thomson, A., Robinson, K., & Vallée-Tourangeau, G. (2016). The 5As: A practical taxonomy for the determinants of vaccine uptake. Vaccine, 34(8), 1018–1024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.11.065

Jacobson, R. M., Targonski, P. V., & Poland, G. A. (2007). A taxonomy of reasoning flaws in the anti-vaccine movement. Vaccine, 25(16), 3146–3152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2007.01.046

So I think what this saying, rather indirectly (from the other direction), if I'm understanding correctly, is that the relationships that can be inferred from looking at a taxonomy are ambiguous, because a taxonomy includes 2 kinds of relationships, but encodes them in the same way (conflates them together as if they were both hyponyms--er, well, this is saying that the are both kinds of hyponyms):

• "An X is a Y" (simple hyponymy)
• "An X is a kind/type of Y".

Actually, I may have read it wrong / misunderstood it... While it's not ruling out that simple hyponymy may sometimes be used in a taxonomy, it is be saying that the "second relation" is "more specifically under the concept of taxonomy" ... which is not really clear, but seems to mean that it is more appropriate / better for use as a criterion in a taxonomy.

Okay, so define "simple hyponymy" and name the other kind of hyponymy that is referenced here.

Good explanation about semantic fields.

I assume the same or an even stronger statement can be made about semantic classes (which to me are like more clear-cut, distinct semantic fields), then? 

This is a great list of some common types of annotations for students just starting out, but it misses one key annotation that I think is the goal of all annotations:

New ideas from the reader that have been sparked by the writing.

Incidentally, this is also one of the more difficult types to create and it's also harder to model to students.

In some sense, many of these annotation types fall relatively neatly into Bloom's taxonomy with my addendum falling under the top level of the pyramid usually labeled "create".

Hier sollte auf die CRediT Taxonomie Bezug genommen werden, ob sie ggf. bereits ausreicht oder doch zu sehr STEM-zentriert ist, um auf die HSS Anwendung zu finden

IJzerman, H., Lewis, N. A., Przybylski, A. K., Weinstein, N., DeBruine, L., Ritchie, S. J., Vazire, S., Forscher, P. S., Morey, R. D., Ivory, J. D., & Anvari, F. (2020). Use caution when applying behavioural science to policy. Nature Human Behaviour, 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-00990-w

It isn't rocket science, but as Jon indicates, it's incredibly powerful.

I use my personal website with several levels of taxonomy for tagging and categorizing a variety of things for later search and research.

Much like the example of the Public Radio International producer, I've created what I call a "faux-cast" because I tag everything I listen to online and save it to my website including the appropriate <audio> link to the.mp3 file so that anyone who wants to follow the feed of my listens can have a playlist of all the podcast and internet-related audio I'm listening to.

A visual version of my "listened to" tags can be found at https://boffosocko.com/kind/listen/ with the RSS feed at https://boffosocko.com/kind/listen/feed/

CRediT - Contributor Roles Taxonomy. (n.d.). CASRAI. Retrieved June 13, 2020, from https://casrai.org/credit/

African women’s breasts are dubbed “beastly,” “pendulous” (Schiebinger 26)--using breasts and vaginal physical traits as a determinism to rank women by race. As Saartjie Bartman’s naked body is exhibited an object--reminding of a modern tech convention putting foreign car parts on a pedestal--the male scientific gaze is further scrutinizing and classifying womxn by parts.

Thus the eyes of the male gaze are the male scientists, carried down to the audience’s white curiosity--the circus scene is disquieting. Further investigation of her body only continues to stretch the spectacle of Saartjie Baartman, exhibited like colonized art within museum, even as a corpse.

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomy_(biology)

This article was published by a team member of the ASU Online Instructional Design and New Media (IDNM) team at Arizona State University. This team shares instructional design methods and resources on the TeachOnline site for online learning. "Integrating Technology with Bloom's Taxonomy" describes practices for implementing 6 principles of Bloom's Digital Taxonomy in online learning. These principles include Creating, Evaluating, Analyzing, Applying, Understanding, and Remembering. The purpose of implementing this model is to create more meaningful and effective experiences for online learners. The author guides instructors in the selection of digital tools that drive higher-order thinking, active engagmenent, and relevancy. Rating 9/10

Disposable assignments can often be mistaken for low stakes assessments and lower levels of Bloom's taxonomy. The key here may be how long the assignment takes the student to complete and does it have value in highlighting key points of a particular learning module. Low stakes assessments can be powerful so defining what disposable means could be tricky work but important.

different from UbD in this way

This is Bloom's taxonomy of cognitive objectives. I selected this page because it explains both the old and new versions of the taxonomy. When writing instructional objectives for adult learning and training, one should identify the level of learning in Blooms that is needed. This is not the most attractive presentation but it is one of the more thorough ones. rating 4/5

This is one of many pages that lists verbs at various levels of Bloom's old taxonomy (verb lists for the new version are easy to find as well). This one has green bars across the page so may not be best for those who are trying to preserve ink though it is easy and attractive to use if referring to it on the screen. Rating 4/5

I agree with Sean’s critique here insofar as he’s - to my reading - warning against a vision of learning that’s more concerned with mass complacency than individual critical thinking. Yet I find Bloom’s Taxonomy to be a helpful launch point. For instance, I think it’s important for teachers to help students remember what they’ve previously learned in order to build on that knowledge. I think building knowledge does require recall; otherwise, new information remains in isolation. The problem arises when teachers and students alike do not engage in the more complex acts of analyzing and evaluating. For me, when I’m (co)designing a lesson, I return to Bloom not as a tablet delivered from on high, but as a taxonomy of possibility, a collection of verbs that stimulates my own thinking about the types of learning that might happen in a certain class with a specific set of students.

More information on the study (and a video) in this blog posting here: http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/gigablog/2016/03/17/see-inside-obama-3d-yes-can/