Mastery Learning

In Benjamin Blooms’s article “Learning for Mastery. Instruction and Curriculum” (1968), he addresses an issue that I have been having with grades for a while now, that is, the curve. I don’t see the point of telling a class at the beginning of the year that only a percentage of them will leave with an A, another percentage with a B, then a C etc. It is not only discouraging, it makes no sense. As Bloom pointed out, an A from one year may be equivalent to a C from the next year. Why are students graded against each other, and not simply on what they do or do not know?

A second idea that Bloom mentioned that I have been thinking about is cumulative grading. He said that perhaps during the semester, teachers should use tests as a guideline to see what the students know and what they still need to learn to reach the mastery level. If a student receives Cs on the first two tests, it is likely that they will not work as hard for the rest of the semester knowing that they already have a lower grade. However, if teachers give students the opportunity to show that they have mastered the material at the end of the semester, what difference does it make if the student received a C early on? If the student who received straight As during the semester and the student who received two Cs know the exact same material at the end of the semester, in terms of letting that student know that they have reached a “master level”, shouldn’t they both receive the same mark?

Acknowledging that most students can reach a mastery level, or at least a proficient level, if given enough time and the proper instruction should not be so difficult for schools and administrators to handle. The schools that push the hardest for even grade distributions seem to have lost focus. They are not worried about the students’ successes or failures; they are worried about how their school looks on a piece of paper. When this becomes the focus, many students are left out who could have succeeded if given the chance. A note left for one middle school teacher after a student graduated from high school said simply. “Thank you for believing in me when no one else did” (Williams-Boyd, Skaggs, & Ayers, 2000, p. 36). Clearly, by allowing students to make mistakes or take the time they need to master a subject, they are not left feeling inadequate.

Teachers need to set high expectations for their students without setting half of them up for failure. This is done by setting overarching goals for the students, and at the same time, being flexible as you go about attaining them. Students learn differently, and this may mean that the same lesson could be taught differently from one year to the next. A lesson that took one day the year before may take three days the next year ” (Williams-Boyd, Skaggs, & Ayers, 2000). When teachers are in tune with their students’ needs and abilities, and use their students’ abilities to drive the lessons, I think that it is much more likely that a majority of the class will reach a proficient or mastery level by the end of the term.

References

Bloom, B. S. (1968). Learning for mastery. Instruction and curriculum. Evaluation Comment, 1, 2.

Williams-Boyd, P., Skaggs, K., & Ayers, L. (2000). Marriage in the middle: The art and craft of teaching early adolescents. Childhood Education, 76, 4.

Computers as Mindtools

I find it very exciting that more teachers are using computers in classrooms as a tool, rather than activity in itself. People use computers as a tool every day; yet, many schools have taken a long time to do this. Students can only sit and play a math blaster game for so long before they grow bored of it. On the other hand, semantic software such as Kidspiriation, Inspiration, PowerPoint, databases and iMovie, to name a few, have endless possibilities. No two students will use the program in exactly the same way.
More importantly, computers as Mindtools allow for creative and critical thinking in students’ work. Computers offer more flexibility of expressing oneself than ever before and therefore, creative endeavors are more abundant in the classrooms. When students are able to use semantic networking tools like Inspiration, they are able to analyze their ideas and draw conclusions (Jonassen, Carr, & Yueh 1998).

Nancy Hertzog and Marjorie Klein (2005) share their experiences with integrating computers as Mindtools into a class for gifted students ages three through six. Students regularly use the software programs Kidspiration, PowerPoint, iPhoto, Simple Text and Photoshop along with digital cameras, digital camcorders and scanners. The choices in software and technology allow the students to express themselves in many different ways and construct their own learning to fit their style. Since many students are still mastering the fine motor skills it takes to write at this young of an age, Simple Text allows them to create a story without the interruption of having to concentrate on letter formation. They are able to concentrate on their ideas and the content, and edit or add to the story easily. In these classrooms, using technology as Mindtools are the driving force behind learning and exploration, and it is clear that they are making a difference in the students’ learning.

Perhaps one reason for the slow start on using computers as Mindtools is because, as Hertzog and Klein (2005) point out, teachers and parents are “digital immigrants”, while the students are “digital natives”, that is, they will grow up in a world where computers are used as a tool everyday. It seems to be taking some time for teachers to incorporate computers as tools simply because this is new to them. One way to speed up this process may be to offer workshops where the teachers themselves are using the computers as Mindtools in order to demonstrate the opportunities that this will give the students. Teachers should always be looking for a way to increase students’ critical thinking skills, and using computer programs as a tool to enhance these skills is an opportunity that should not be taken lightly.

References:

Hertzog, N., & Klein, M. (2005). Beyond gaming: a technology explosion in early childhood classrooms. Gifted Child Today. 28(3), 24-32.

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

The Art of Learning

In Seymour Papert’s “The Children’s Machine”, (1993) he brought up the question of whether students should be learning specific material or learning to learn. I have been thinking about this lately myself and it does seem that schools don’t spend enough time teaching students to be able to recognize how they each learn best. Upon reflection, I know that I am a very visual learner and need to see and do things to understand them better. This would have been very helpful to realize in my calculus class in high school where the teacher rarely used the chalkboard to teach. I knew that I was having more trouble than other years in math but I figured it was because it was my senior year so I was not trying as hard and calculus is just harder. However, I do know that when my teacher would actually show me how to work a problem on paper, I would understand it very quickly. I think that it definitely could have made a difference in my success in calculus if I understood how important it was for me to see the problems worked out, rather than just talk about them. Teachers are being taught to recognize different learning styles in their students, but why should not they teach the students directly? This may not apply as well to younger learners, but it could make a big difference once the student is given more responsibility for their own learning.

It was interesting that Papert went into such detail about how he learned the names of the flowers because what seemed to be the driving force was his desire to figure out how to unlock this part of his brain. Providing context as he suggests can certainly make a big difference, but if a student is not interested in a particular subject, giving them a greater context will not be the only solution. In a study testing whether an interactive lesson in a computer-based learning environment enhances learning, Evans and Gibbons (in press) found that while there was not a significant difference in the overall retention rate, there was a significant difference in the performance on the transfer questions. For example, this lesson was on how a pump works so a transfer question was “What could be done to make the pump more reliable, that is, to make sure that it won’t fail?” (Evans & Gibbons, in press). They also found that the students who used the interactive lesson completed all of the questions on the test faster than they completed those who used the non-interactive model. From this study, using interactive material seems to let the student work through the lesson at their own rate. This coupled with the fact that the cognitive load for each student is self-regulated can help the students gain a greater understanding of certain components of a lesson.

Clearly, I agree with Papert’s ideas about the importance of the art of learning. If students gain more insight into how they learn, their school career could be much more successful. If this strategy is combined with what teachers already know about making learning more meaningful, then the students’ should be leaving school with the universal skill of learning that can be applied to whatever environment they choose to enter.


References

Evans, C. & Gibbons, N. (in press). The interactivity effect in multimedia learning. Computers & Education.

Papert, S. (1993). The children's machine: rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York: BasicBooks.