Bloom

While reading the Bloom article, I could not help but think of some of Dr. Michael George’s statements in class on October 17. In the opening of the article, Bloom describes the expectations of a standard class. One third will fail no matter what you do. Another third will pass even if you don’t teach. The final third is the group you need to teach. Dr. George talked about this same topic during his lecture. He was furious that we aren’t really teaching all our students, only the middle third. Both Bloom and Dr. George agree that this manner of teaching is flawed and needs to be corrected. The critical issue however, is that their statements are separated by thirty eight years. How much has changed during that time period? Bloom sets out describing the five variables of the Carroll model to promote mastery. Evidence shows that the Carroll’s model has been accepted and that Carroll is responsible for focusing the educational community to how learning is affected by time (Carroll 1989). Mastery learning on the other hand has become a topic of some debate.

Robert Slavin authored Mastery Learning Reconsidered in 1987 and questions some of the principals of Bloom’s theory. Since that article, both authors have responded to each other with additional thoughts and justifications. One of the primary principles Slavin takes issue with is the idea that all students need to be at the mastery level before they can continue learning. He continues by illustrating how this requires a change from the traditional model of set time on task with variable achievement to a mastery model where time is the variable and achievement is set (Slavin 1987). Slavin further illustrates the problems associated with time being a variable. What happens to the students that do achieve mastery after the initial instruction? They can’t move on to the next lesson so long as some students are still working. In addition, how long do does the teacher continue to work with the students needing extra attention?

Once answer that Bloom did highlight in his original paper is the idea of students working at their own pace. When I was in high school, I was able to put this theory into practice. My high school had an Algebra 2/Trigonometry class that allowed students to work at their own pace. There were only 15 students in the class and one teacher. There were minimum guidelines set that each student had to master in order to get credit for the Algebra 2. If you were able to move quickly through the material, you could get credit for Trigonometry as well. The teacher did a brief instruction once a week highlighting where you need to be to keep on track and the rest of the time was spent on one-on-one teaching. If you were having difficulty, you could request additional time with the instructor. If you were not having difficulty, you progressed quickly through the material. It was one of the most unique learning experiences I have been involved in.

While this method is not practical for all types of instruction, for math it was a good fit. There are ways to make mastery learning work. It is our job to find out how and implement those ways. We must remember, just because something isn’t easy doesn’t mean we can’t do it. Our goal is to provide the best education for all “thirds” of our students.

References

Bloom, BS. (1968). Learning for Mastery. Instruction and Curriculum. Regional Education Laboratory for the Carolinas and Virginia, Topical Papers and Reprints, Number 1.

Carroll, JB. (1989). The Carroll Model: A 25-Year Retrospective and Prospective View. Educational researcher, 18(1), 26-31.

Slavin, RE. (1990). Mastery Learning Re-Reconsidered. Review of educational research, 60(2), 300-02.