Bloom in the Springtime

I think spring is a good time to reflect on the contributions of Benjamin S. Bloom, a native of Pennsylvania. This entry will comment on his ideas on learning for mastery. Bloom's contention was that schools provide successful learning experiences for only some students, and that student, teacher, and administrator attitudes, along with teaching strategies and evaluation processes needed to change in order provide success for at least 90% of students (see Bloom, 1968, 1971).

Bloom made some good observations that should be revisited today by educators. I believe that students, teachers, administrators (and parents) at schools such as Vann Elementary might find many answers to their tremendous struggles. Vann is an inner-city school in Pittsburgh plagued by the pressures school administration and teachers put on low-income, disadvantaged minority students to meet the requirements of PA's standardized tests.

Bloom argued that mastery learning requires five conditions which can be summarized as differentiated instructional strategies, absolute standards, and time. Bloom believed that aptitude tests are better predictors of the rate of learning rather than the level of learning. Some of Vann's students come from homes where the parent(s) or guardian didn't successfully complete high school and do not supervise the student's homework and learning for various reasons including having to work long hours or being disengaged due to a drug dependency. These conditions work against the effort, time, and support needed for students to achieve and demonstrate mastery in basic subjects. The challenge is for educators to find the materials and methods to assure the greatest level of student achievement on standardized test.

References:
Bloom, B. (1971). Mastery learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Bloom, B. S. (1968). Learning for mastery. Evaluation Comment, 1 (2). University of California, Los Angeles. (ED 053 419)

Computers as Cognitive Tools

Some educators seem to struggle with the finding an appropriate role for computers in instruction. Many have adopted a guiding implementation principle of using computers to do what is otherwise not possible. Computers can store and retrieve a tremendous amount of data at the stroke of the keyboard. It is doubtful that students can do so to the same extent. Further, computers enable educators to make real-time connections between learners and the rest of the world. Computers also make interactive, individualized learning and assessment possible. Many of these common uses focus on what the computer can do for learners as a vehicle of instruction.

The computer as a mindtool, however, shifts the focus to what learners can do with computers to extend learners' own cognitive processes. Jonnasen, Carr, and Yeu (1998) argued that computers should be used to help learners construct knowledge. They described computer applications that help learners organize and analyze what they know via dynamic and conversational tools. They rejected the notion that computers or (technologies) should instruct learners.

However, I do not totally reject the notion that computers should not serve as expert converyors of information for the same reasons that I don't accept the idea that constructivism is the only valid instructional theory. There are times that direct instruction is both efficient and necessary. For example, if safety is at stake, I would not think it would be sufficient for those learning to be an emergency medical technician to have to construct their individual knowledge and socially negotiate the meaning of a patient suffering from signs of a stroke. An expert system is an appropriate use of technology in this case. Neither do I support Perelman (1992) who believed that a smart environment filled with tools with embedded intelligence is all we need to learn. It is foolish for us to totally rely on technology to convey and interpret information. At this point, humans are better able to create, imagine, and recognize patterns and trends. Just because people aren't capable of the volume of information processing that a computer is capable of, doesn't mean we need to give up on the cognitive processes that build our personal expertise.

I contend that we do not see enough instructional applications of learners using computers as mindtools. I advocate learning both with and learning from computer technologies. Computers as cognitive tools, then, assist learners with their information processing by both supplying the content and aiding in its analysis and interpretation.

References
Jonassen, D. H., Carr, C., & Yueh, H.-P. (1998). Computers as mindtools for engaging learners in critical thinking. TechTrends, 43(2), 24-32.

Perelman, L. J. (1992). School's out: A radical new formula for the revitalization of America's educational system. Avon Books: New York.

Fill in the Blank

I recently read "A Word for Learning," the fifth chapter in the book The Children's Machine (Papert, 1993). I came away from that reading with the idea that if learners talked more about their own "messy mind" (that is their processes of thinking), then other learners might better understand theirown process for learning and perhaps provide some guidance to others who are seeking to understand their processes. Although I haven't done a complete literature review but based on anecdotal evidence and my experience, I tend to agree with Papert's contention that we place more of an emphasis on teaching than on learning. He proposed we use the word mathetics to describe the art of learning. Papert's book suggests that rethinking our concept of learning is one way to reform our schools and our roles as educators (Murphy, 1996). What do you think?

I realize that we live in a global information economy, and I believe we can no longer ignore filling in the blank. Papert would support our finding for ourselves the specific knowledge we need which Murphy stated is a constructionist notion. If we're to be reflective, critical thinkers in this global information economy, we should understand who we are as lifelong learners. So, how do you propose filling in your blank?

References:
Murphy, E. (Fall, 1996). The Children's Machine.
Retrieved March 25, 2006 from http://www.cdli.ca/~elmurphy/emurphy/papert.html

Papert, S. (1993). A word for learning. In The children's machine: Rethinking school in the age of computers (pp. 82-105). New York: BasicBooks.