Reflection on Bloom's Article

Learning for mastery should be paramount in a teacher - student relationship. Teachers should seek alternative ways to help students who have difficulty in some subjects. A teacher worth his onions would alleviate a feeling of defeat and passivity in all of the students in his “care.” Varied instructional materials and procedures are needed, which may translate to extra work but the best teachers are not in the profession for financial gains but for their passion for molding the “greater tomorrow” – the kids.

According to Bloom (1968), “modern society requires continual learning throughout life. If the schools do not promote adequate learning and reassurance of progress, the student must come to reject learning – both in the school and later life.” How can we allow this to happen to all these leaders of tomorrow? This killing of “embryo” has destructive effects on our society and the results are not palatable. How can we explain the massacre of Columbine High school in April 1999? Some causes and effects could be traced to feelings of defeat and passivity. When students have difficulty with subjects, they should not become an outcast or a subject of mockery. There should be system in place to help students to learn and master the act of learning. The feeling is so rewarding and motivating. According to Bloom (1968), “the clearest evidence of affective change is the interest the student develops for the subject he has mastered. He begins to “like” the subject and to desire more of it.”

Exploration of new information become something fun, but poor performance may become a turn off. We can conclude that mastery leads to motivation for further learning. It is time to discard the broken cistern or what good is it to serve? I reject any teacher that begins a new term expecting only a third of his students to adequately learn what he has to teach, expects about a third to fail or just get by, and expect another third to learn a good deal of what he has to teach but not enough to be regarded as “good students.” According to Bloom (1968), “this set of expectations, which fixes the academic goals of teachers and students, is the most wasteful and destructive aspect of the present educational system. It reduces the aspirations of both the teachers and students; it reduces motivation for learning in students; and it systematically destroys the ego and self-concept of a sizeable group of students who are legally required to attend school for 10 to 12 years under conditions which are frustrating and humiliating year after year.”

Unsupported staff training is bound to have negative repercussion on the staff’s strength and ability to breed students with life long learning goals in their mind. According to Bloom (1968), “most students, perhaps over 90 percent, can master what teachers have to teach them, and it is the task of instruction to find the means which will enable students to master the subject under construction.” Inability to forge this partnership is nothing but a broken cistern. It alienate youths from both school and society. For how long are we going to tolerate this happening?

References:
Bloom, B. S., Stability and change in human characteristics. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1964.
Bloom, B.S. (1968). Leaning for mastery: Instruction and Curriculum, 1(2), 1-12.