Health  Vol.7 No.6 , June 2015
Communicating Different and Higher across the Praxis of Bloom’s Taxonomy While Shifting toward Health at Every Size (HAES)
Abstract: The majority of recent studies on prevention and control of childhood obesity focus on methods for achieving weight loss. In contrast, the Health at Every Size (HAES) paradigm fosters improved health behaviors for people of all sizes by emphasizing natural diversity of body type and attention to social, emotional, and spiritual factors in addition to physical ones. This study examined introduction of the HAES paradigm to student teachers using different communication models while moving across the learning domains of Bloom’s Taxonomy. The qualitative research tested a face-to-face verbal communication model and a Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) module and its blog. It was also based upon reflection diaries recorded by participants using both models. Participants included Druze, Jewish, and Bedouin students at a teacher training program in northern Israel. The student teachers succeeded in developing the HAES concepts further while demonstrating the higher domain levels across Bloom’s Taxonomy. These higher levels emerged when engaging with theoretical concepts and practical dilemmas relating to the HAES concepts of health promotion, body image, well-being, and self-worth. Challenging the appreciation of HAES using different communication models can be translated into diverse contexts of Health Education Practices.
Cite this paper: Walter, O. and Ezra, R. (2015) Communicating Different and Higher across the Praxis of Bloom’s Taxonomy While Shifting toward Health at Every Size (HAES). Health, 7, 788-799. doi: 10.4236/health.2015.76093.

[1]   Bacon, L. and Aphramor, L. (2011) Weight Science: Evaluating the Evidence for a Paradigm Shift. Nutrition Journal, 10, 2891-2903.

[2]   Robison, J. (2005) Health at Every Size: Toward a New Paradigm of Weight and Health. Medscape General Medicine, 7, 13.

[3]   Dewey, J. (1964) John Dewey on Education: Se-lected Writings. In: Archambault, R.D., Ed., Modern Library Random House, New York.

[4]   Kaufman, S. (1992) Integrating Theory and Practice and Preparation in Teacher Training Colleges. Mofet Institute, Jerusalem. (In He-brew)

[5]   Feiman-Nemser, S. and Buchmann, M. (1989) Describing Teacher Education: A Framework and Illustrative Findings from a Longitudinal Study of Six Students. The Elementary School Journal, 89, 365-377.

[6]   Collins, W.S. (2011) Big Retailers Make Pledge of Stores for “Food Deserts”. New York Times, July 21, A15.

[7]   Sahar, G. (2011) School Year Will Mark a Healthy Lifestyle. Israel Ministry of Educa-tion Web Site.

[8]   Gronlund, N. (1985) Measurement and Evaluation in Teaching. MacMillan, New York.

[9]   Harrow, A.J. (1972) A Taxonomy of the Psychomotor Domain: A Guide for Developing Behavioral Objectives. McKay, New York.

[10]   Simpson, E.J. (1972) The Classification of Educational Objectives in the Psychomotor Domain. Gryphon House, Washington DC.

[11]   Krathwohl, D.R., Bloom, B.S. and Masia, B. (1964) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals, Handbook 2: Affective Domain. McKay, New York.

[12]   Krathwohl, D. (2002) A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview. Theory into Practice, 41, 212-218.

[13]   Anderson, L.W. and Krathwohl, D.R., Eds. (2001) A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Complete Edition, Chap. 8-13, Longman, New York.

[14]   Kiesler, S., Siegel, J. and McGuire, T.W. (1984) Social Psychological Aspects of Computer-Mediated Communication. American Psychologist, 39, 1123-1134.

[15]   Camacho, L.M. and Paulus, P.B. (1995) The Role of Social Anxiousness in Group Brainstorming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 1071-1080.

[16]   Diehl, M. and Stroebe, W. (1991) Productivity Loss in Idea-Generating Groups: Tracking down the Blocking Effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 392-303.

[17]   Jablin, E.M. and Seibold, D.R. (1978) Implications for Problem Solving Groups of Empirical Research on Brainstorming: A Critical Review of the Literature. Southern Speech Communication Journal, 43, 327-356.

[18]   Lamm, H. and Trommsdorf, G. (1973) Group versus Individual Performance on Tasks Requiring Ideational Proficiency (Brainstorming): A Review. European Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 361-387.

[19]   Mullen, B., Johnson, C. and Salas, E. (1991) Productivity Loss in Brainstorming Groups: A Meta-Analytic Integration. Basic and Applied Social Psy-chology, 12, 3-23.

[20]   Shea, P. and Bidjerano, T. (2009) Community of Inquiry as a Theoretical Framework to Foster “Epistemic Engagement” and “Cognitive Presence” in Online Education. Computers Education, 52, 543-553.

[21]   Dougiamas, M. (1998) A Journey into Constructivism.

[22]   Dougiamas, M. and Taylor, P.C. (2000) Improving the Effectiveness of Tools for Internet-Based Education. Teaching and Learning Forum.

[23]   Halm, M., Olivier, B., Farooq, U. and Hoadley, C. (2005) Collaboration in Learning Design Using Peer-to-Peer Technologies. In: Koper, R. and Tattersall, C., Eds., Learning Design, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 203-213.

[24]   Walter, O. and Ezra, R. (2012) Health at Every Size (HAES): A Challenge in Higher Education to Communicate the Weight on Our Mind. Articles, Creative Research and Art, 3, 60-63.

[25]   Ezra, R. (2007) Children’s Eating and Weight Concepts: Communications and Conflicting Cultures. PhD Dissertation, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge & Chelmsford.

[26]   Ezra, R. (2010) Shifting the Paradigms: Communicating the Weight or Reducing the Weight on Children’s Minds [Audio Recording]. In: Cooper, C., Ed., Seminar 2: Fat in the Clinic and Health at Every Size (HAES), Warwick University, 13-14 May 2010.

[27]   Bloom, B.S. (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook: The Cognitive Domain. David McKay, New York.

[28]   Brown, V.R. and Paulus, P.B. (2002) Making Group Brainstorming More Effective: Recommendations from an Associative Memory Perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 208-212.

[29]   Firestien, R.L. and McCowan, R. (1988) Creative Problem Solving and Communication Behavior in Small Groups. Creativity Research Journal, 1, 106-114.

[30]   Isaksen, S.G. and Gaulin, J.P. (2005) A Reexamination of Brain-storming Research Implications for Research and Practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 315-329.

[31]   Cocea, M. and Weibelzahl, S. (2007) Eliciting Motivation Knowledge from Log Files towards Motivation Diagnosis for Adaptive Systems. In: Conati, C., McCoy, K. and Paliouras, G., Eds., User Modelling 2007. Proceedings of 11th International Conference, Corfu, 25-29 July 2007, 197-206.

[32]   Qu, L., Wang, N. and Johnson, W.L. (2005) Using Learner Fo-cus of Attention to Detect Learner Motivation Factors. In: Ardissono, L., Brna, P. and Mitrovic, A., Eds., User Modelling 2005, Proceedings of 10th International Conference, Edinburgh, Scotland, Edinburgh, 24-29 July 2005, 70-73.

[33]   Henningsen, D.D., Cruz, M.G. and Miller, M.L. (2000) The Role of Social Loafing in Pre-Deliberation Decision- Making. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4, 168-175.

[34]   Kerr, N.L. and Bruun, S.E. (1983) Dispensability of Member Effort and Group Motivation Losses: Free-Rider Effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 78-94.

[35]   Isaksen, S.C. (1998) A Review of Brainstorming Research: Six Critical Issues for Inquiry. Creative Research Unit, Creative Problem Solving Group, Buffalo.

[36]   Priola, V., Smith, J.L. and Armstrong, S.J. (2004) Group Work and Cognitive Style: A Discursive Investigation. Small Group Research, 35, 565-595.

[37]   Schultz, R.G. (2012) Druze in Israel.

[38]   Hart, A. and Wolff, D. (2006) Developing Local “Communities of Practice” through Local Community-University Part-nerships. Planning, Practice & Research, 21, 121-138.