Entry #8: Reflections on Bloom article

This article discusses the 5 variables that contribute to achieving “mastery of learning”: aptitude for learning, quality of instruction, ability to understand instruction, perseverance, and time allowed for learning. In the past 38 years since this article was published, I think we have made good progress in determining effective instruction and trying to accommodate for individual needs. There is still a long way to go, but the article keeps us focused on the key challenges.

Interestingly, the largest challenge identified by the author is low expectations. In fact, Bloom (1968) estimates that teachers expect 1/3 of their students to fail and another 1/3 to learn a good deal but still not be “good students”. From my experience, I think the teachers who hold these beliefs are the minority. Regardless, low expectations are detrimental to student success, drastically decreasing students’ self-confidence and motivation. Students will not work hard if they “know” that they will fail anyways. Thus, it is essential for teachers to set high expectations for all students. If you believe in your students, they will start to believe in themselves.

The article made me question grading methods typical of schools. While I do believe competition is important in many instances and can teach valuable lessons, I don’t think it has a place in the classroom (save for friendly Jeopardy review games!) I agree that cooperation in learning rather than competition will lead to more achievement. To encourage this, I think we must eliminate the use of a curve when grading. Without a curve on tests, students will be encouraged to work together and help each other without worrying about giving an advantage to peers (and thus being disadvantaged themselves). I see this frequently in college. Students generally know before a test if there will be a curve, based on previous semesters. An interesting situation results. A student will hope that his or her peers do poorly so that he/she will benefit from the curve. Essentially, one just needs to score higher than the average. This neither motivates a student to achieve his best (only better than his peers) nor does it motivate him to help his peers. This is certainly not a good learning environment. By eliminating curves on tests, a more positive, cooperative learning environment can be established.

After identifying perseverance as an essential quality for mastery of learning, I was shocked to read this passage (p.6):

“There seems to be little reason to make learning so difficult that only a small proportion of the students can persevere to mastery. Endurance and unusual perseverance may be appropriate for long-distance running – they are not great virtues in their own right. The emphasis should be on learning, not on vague ideas of discipline and endurance.”

I was appalled that Bloom believes endurance and “unusual perseverance” are not “great virtues in their own right”. I do not understand how discipline and endurance are “vague” ideas. These character traits are essential for success in life (Wilkinson, 1983 & McCance, 2002). How do we set high expectations and yet, essentially allow students to give up after persevering for a little while. The message to students is: work hard, but not too hard. Should we then make learning easier just so more students can “master” it? No - we should hold the bar high. Perhaps some students will not reach it, but they will have a greater sense of accomplishment and succeed further than they thought they could, compared to holding the bar at a lower level. I would be more proud to earn a B in a really tough class than to receive an A in a class where I didn’t need to work very hard. As the saying goes, “shoot for the moon – even if you miss, you’ll land amongst the stars.” If we really believe all students can achieve and hold high expectations of them, we must also help them develop “unusual perseverance” to reach their potential. It is not just for long-distance running, but equally essential for every part of our lives – especially learning.



References

Bloom, B.S. (1968, May). Leaning for mastery. Evaluation Comment, 1(2), 1-12.

Wilkinson, J. (1983, September 23). The art of teaching. Innovation Abstracts, 5(26). (Eric Document Reproduction Services No. ED237173)

McCance, S. (2002, October). Learning well, doing good. Leadership for Student Activities. Retrieved November 5, 2006, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3962/is_200210/ai_n9118761.