Daniel Buck:

The fundamental misconception to this approach is that mimicry, memorization, and structured practice somehow constitute lower-order thinking. Liljedahl includes a staircase diagram that proceeds from doing to justifying, explaining, teaching, and creating to demonstrate his point. Merely doing math problems isn’t thinking in his framework.

This hierarchy of thinking almost perfectly mimics (I thought mimicry was bad) the ubiquitous “Bloom’s Taxonomy,” which similarly ranks types of thinking from remembering and understanding up to evaluation and creation. But in the 1956 Handbook where he introduced the topic, education professor Benjamin Bloom created his taxonomy simply to help teachers discuss classroom activities “with greater precision,” not to rank or judge them.

In fact, he refers to knowledge acquisition as the “primary” objective in education. Knowledge and comprehension are the bases of far more complex thinking. If students are busy counting out basic math facts on their fingers, they can’t attend to more difficult math problems. If they’re busy sounding out words, they can’t attend to higher-order thinking, such as evaluating the text in hand or creating their own poems. Factual knowledge, memorization, and comprehension facilitate and allow robust analysis, synthesis, and creation