Jesus and Higher Order Thinking

at
Categories
Tags

 

 

It is instructive to consult the Master Teacher when we are considering “teaching and learning.”
To be sure, Jesus in His humanity did not know about Bloom’s Taxonomy nor the upgrade by Anderson and Krathwohl, so He did not think about getting his audience to evaluate, or analyze, or apply following the terms we use. Nor did he use active learning strategies—no think/pair/share in the Sermon on the Mount.
However, if you look carefully at what Jesus did, you see that he often challenged thinking including challenging presuppositions, and correcting the illogic of the Pharisees. So, while he imparted a lot of information, he also used phrases like “You have heard. . . but I tell you this.” His audience had to consider that the Old Testament laws on divorce really did not get to the heart of the matter. Jesus offered that correction in his challenge to think about God’s original intent for a husband and wife to stay together as “one flesh” and that only men and women’s hardness of heart led to God’s concession in allowing divorce. The same challenge of thinking applied to misconceptions about hatred (tantamount to “murder”), and many other legalistic presuppositions. His use of parables also challenged thinking and was actually a learning technique that led to personal application.
Instructions
For this discussion board assignment, we want to explore Jesus’ teaching through the lens of the teaching taxonomies we have explored this term (Bloom and Anderson and Krathwohl’s revision of Bloom).
1. Review Jesus’ major teaching discourses, such as the Sermon on the Mount
2. Review Jesus’ use of parables and story telling
3. Look at Jesus’ engagement with the Pharisees and those who opposed him
4. Contrast that with Jesus’ engagement with those who sought him
All the Gospels contain great demonstrations of Jesus’ teaching, but you could review in particular Jesus’ teaching in the book of John.

identify how Jesus demonstrated HOTS in his teaching. Pick out several examples from Jesus teaching that illustrate at least two of the higher levels of thought from Bloom/Anderson and Krathwohl. Explain the link and suggest why those examples showed how Jesus challenged thinking.
Then think of the active learning strategies we have reviewed this term—case analysis, examination of viewpoints, Devil’s advocate, scenario analysis, discussion, think/pair/share, etc. While you will not find examples of many of the active learning strategies mentioned in our texts, can you identify some elements of active learning in Jesus’ teaching?

 

Sample Solution

This is a fascinating exercise, bridging ancient teaching methods with modern pedagogical frameworks. While Jesus certainly didn’t use Bloom’s Taxonomy, his approach undeniably fostered higher-order thinking (HOTS) and incorporated elements that resonate with contemporary active learning strategies.

 

Jesus Demonstrating Higher-Order Thinking Skills (HOTS)

 

Jesus consistently moved beyond mere recall of information, challenging his audience to analyze, evaluate, and even create new understanding through His teachings. Here are several examples illustrating at least two of the higher levels of Bloom’s/Anderson & Krathwohl’s taxonomy:

1. Analysis (Breaking down information into its component parts and understanding how those parts relate to one another)

  • Example 1: Sermon on the Mount – “You have heard that it was said… But I tell you…” (Matthew 5:21-48)
    • The Link to Analysis: Jesus takes established Old Testament laws (e.g., “You shall not murder,” “You shall not commit adultery”) and breaks them down into their underlying principles and intent. He forces his audience to analyze the spirit of the law, rather than just its letter. He separates the outward act from the inward motive. For murder, He reveals that anger and contempt are also forms of breaking the spirit of the law. For adultery, He points to lustful thoughts.
    • Why it Challenged Thinking: This challenged their presuppositions by revealing that their understanding was superficial. They had previously only analyzed the action of the law, but Jesus pushed them to analyze the source and intent behind the law. This forced them to look inward and scrutinize their own hearts and motives, a deeper level of analysis than they were accustomed to. It dismantled their legalistic framework and called for a more profound moral self-examination.
  • Example 2: The Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37)
    • The Link to Analysis: When a lawyer asks, “Who is my neighbor?”, Jesus doesn’t give a direct definition. Instead, he tells a story that requires the listener to analyze the characters’ actions and motivations. The priest and the Levite represent religious and social leaders who adhered to the letter of the law (avoiding ritual impurity), but failed to act compassionately. The Samaritan, a despised outsider, embodies true neighborliness. The listener must analyze why the Samaritan’s actions fit the definition of “neighbor” better than the actions of the “righteous” men.
    • Why it Challenged Thinking: This challenged their narrow, ethnocentric view of “neighbor.” The lawyer expected a categorization based on proximity or shared identity. Jesus’ parable forced him to analyze the qualities of action that define neighborliness, transcending social and religious boundaries. It broke down the concept of “neighbor” into its functional components of compassion and action, requiring the listener to re-evaluate their own prejudiced categorizations.

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.
Hi, how can I help?