Learning for Mastery

Almost forty years after the article by Bloom (1968) was published, many students are still failing in school. In some ways, the education system has “progressed”. Schools have moved away from the grading practices of that era. Many research studies in academic areas, especially in special education, focus on curriculum modification, curriculum-based measurement and peer-tutoring (Deno, 2003; DuPaul, Ervin, Hook, & McGoey, 1998;Umbreit, Lane, & Dejud, 2004). Many of these were mentioned by Bloom as variables for mastery learning. With the amount of money spent on educational research and improving instruction in school, it is sad that many students continue to fail.

Schools in this decade are facing a new challenge: school violence and problem behaviors. Current research studies focus on school-wide positive behavior support (SWPBS) and response to intervention (RTI) to intervene with the majority of students in school in terms of behavior and academic achievement respectively. SWPBS has shown to be effective in reducing office discipline referrals, and in some cases, improving academic performance in schools (Nelson, Martella, & Marchand-Martella, 2002). Bloom stated that the key to mastery is time, and with the advent of NCLB, that is one thing that students and schools do not have enough.

References

Bloom, B. (1968). Learning for mastery. Evaluation Comment, 1, 1-11.

Deno, S.L. (2003). Curriculum-based measures: Development and perspectives. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 28, 3-12.

DuPaul, G.J., Ervin, R.A., Hook, C.L., & McGoey, K. (1998). Peer tutoring for children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: Effects on classroom behavior and academic performance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, 579-592.

Nelson, J.R., Martella, R.M., & Marchand-Martella, N. (2002). Maximizing student learning. The effects of a comprehensive school-based program for preventing problem behaviors. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 10, 136-148.

Computers as Mindtools

I agree with Jonassen and colleagues (1998) that utilizing computers as mindtools would engage learners in critical thinking. However I disagree with their statement that mindtools would require students to think about what they know in different, meaningful ways. Students may think differently if they are utilizing the computers as designers as opposed to learners, but I have my doubts that mindtools would engage students differently compared to other active/engaged learning methods such as cooperative learning. Some of their examples of mindtools such as databases and concept mapping software are not exclusive to computers because students could very well construct the same knowledge with the use of the basic paper and pencil.

Mindtools may be effective but I feel their effectiveness is dependent on the learner’s motivation to use these tools. I have trouble imagining school children being excited about entering data in a content database and using it to analyze and organize the data. There is however one form of entertainment that has captured the attention of young and old alike: the computer and video games. In a study by Dickey (2005), she compared the engagement strategies in popular computer and video games and the characteristics of engaged learning. With that, she examined how these game designs may be used to inform instructional design. Perhaps one day technology would allow students to design their own video games that are both engaging and educational.

References

Dickey, M.D. (2005). Engaging by design: How engagement strategies in popular computer and video games can form instructional design. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 53, 67-83.

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

Flower-ology!

While the study of learning has dropped off the radar for many years, recently there has been a renew interest in this field (Papert, 1993; Siegler, 2000). Siegler (2000) summarized these four consistent findings on learning that emerged through microgenetic studies: a) change is gradual, b) discoveries follow success as well as failure, c) early variability is related to later learning, and d) discoveries are constrained by conceptual understanding. I observed the four findings by Siegler in Papert's description of his learning experiences in the study of flowers:

Change is gradual. It took Papert several years to become familiarize with the many flowers he regularly came in contact with. At first he was using strategies that he was taught in school, but slowly he learned to make etymology connections, which was an effective strategy for him.

Discoveries follow success as well as failures. This is obvious for Papert as he discovered new strategies after previous strategies failed to make the necessary connection that he needed. He also began to finely hone these new strategies.

Early variability is related to later learning. Papert took the time to learn about flowers and in the beginning he used many different strategies to help him learn. Due to his persistence, that involved abandoning ineffective strategies and adopting new useful strategies, his learning increased.

Discoveries are constrained by conceptual understanding. The strategies that Papert used may not make sense if he did not have the conceptual understanding of the subject matter. If he had developed a faulty conceptual understanding that the name of the flower must directly relate to the shape of the flower, he would have a tough time trying to make the connections later on.

The first time I read Papert’s description of his learning experiences it did not make any impression on me. But when I think of my own learning experiences, I find that it is not easy to describe these experiences. It would take a lot of thinking and even then, my description would not have been as fluent. And it is then that I began to appreciate the article and realized that I have yet to fully understand how I learn or even take the time to reflect on my learning experiences.

References

Papert, S. (1993). The Children's Machine: Rethinking School in the Age of the Computer. New York: BasicBooks.

Siegler, R.S. (2000). The rebirth of children’s learning. Child Development, 71, 26-35.