Bloom’s Learning for Mastery

LFM is an educational model, proposed by Benjamin Bloom (Benjamin S. Bloom, 1968), an American educational psychologist who is also known for his Taxonomy of Learning Objectives (B S Bloom et al., 1956). LFM gained considerable importance in the educational community as an effective method for gaining Mastery in learning and improve learning achievement (Guskey, 2007).

Bloom observed that teachers use the same approaches for teaching all students with different skills and abilities and allocate the same time to learn. Bloom observed that such approaches created considerable variation in students’ performance. Students who find this teaching approach appropriate perform higher than students who find this teaching approach less appropriate for them. Bloom suggested LFM as an educational approach that supports a learning process where students can succeed better results and reduce variations of performance among them. This can be achieved by teachers adopting a different type of instruction (Guskey, 2007), providing different time and means of learning to meet students’ individual learning needs and help them achieve mastery.

LFM suggests a learning process which is divided into instructional units. Each student has to master the learning unit before proceeding to the next one (Arlin & Webster, 1983). The LFM consists of the following elements (Livingston & Gentile, 1996):

a. defined learning objectives;

b. the passing score that defines mastery; c. feedback and corrective activities.

Figure 3.1 depicts Bloom’s LFM educational model, where the LFM instructional procedure is divided into instructional units. It starts with instruction for unit 1 to

70 cover the defined objectives. Each student has to master the instructional unit before proceeding to the next one (Arlin & Webster, 1983). To master each unit, students follow the instruction and then complete the formative assessment A to assess their learning. The formative assessment A sets a passing level (score) which defines whether learners reached mastery. Students who pass the formative assessment A, are considered successful and they continue their learning with enrichment activities.

Learners who fail to pass the Formative assessment A have not achieved mastery, and they are not progressing to the next unit because they still have learning gaps. In this case, teachers provide correctives to support learners in bridging their learning gaps.

Instruction

UNIT 1 Assessment AFormative

Enrichment Activities

correctives _{Assessment B}Formative

Instruction UNIT 2

Figure 3. 1. Bloom’s LFM (Pelkola, Antti and Christofer, 2017), p.4

Correctives include one-to-one tutoring, individualised instruction within a group- based classroom setting, providing alternative learning resources (Guskey, 2007). Learners who have gone through correctives have another opportunity to pass the formative assessment B to evaluate their improved learning before they move to the next unit.

The second formative assessment satisfies two reasons:

a. it ensures that correctives helped students in overcoming their learning difficulties and achieve learning;

b. it offers learners a second opportunity to become successful, and therefore, it increases their motivation (Livingston & Gentile, 1996).

Learners who passed the formative assessment A are considered the “fast” learners. Bloom suggests that teachers should provide fast learners with enriching activities while the “slow” learners are doing the correctives so that later all students move to

71 the next unit. Enriching activities can include advanced exercises or advanced problem-solving tasks, research and production of reports.

Figures 3.2 and 3.3 below depict the learning performance of students marked A, B, C, D and F. Figure 3.2 depicts the performance of students in a traditional classroom. The normal distribution suggests that the majority of students perform around C grade. Fewer students perform A and B grade.

Figure 3.3 depicts the performance of students following the LFM educational model. The curve is shifted to the right, showing that most students, perform better with more A and B grades and fewer C and lower grades.

Figure 3. 2. Students’ performance in a

traditional class Figure 3. 3. Students’ performance with LFM

3.3.1.

Proponents and opponents of LFM

Proponents of Learning for Mastery (LFM), in their research findings, support that this theory produces successful learning experiences, high level of retention and satisfaction emphasising the role of the teacher in persisting into supporting students to reach mastery in learning (Whiting et al., 1994).

Bloom made two statements associated with LMF:

a. when learners are given feedback, correctives and individualised support, under ideal conditions of mastery learning, they become gradually competent until the difference between fast and slow learners cannot precisely be measured in time.

b. when the quality of instruction and the amount of time becomes available to learners considering their characteristics, their aptitude, and their needs in

72 learning, most of the students are expected to achieve mastery on their subject (Livingston & Gentile, 1996).

However, there is a debate on LFM among criticisms who support that within limited schooling time, individual differences in students are reflected through differences in their learning performance (Arlin & Webster, 1983). Teachers believed that the constraint of limited class time would restrain their efforts to implement mastery learning and therefore they won’t be able to cover the amount of the material defined by the school or the curricula (Horton, 1976).

Other criticisms argue that Bloom’s Mastery Learning (Gage and Berliner, 1988; Mueller, 1976):

a. removes the responsibility for learning away from the students who learn to have support to fill their gaps;

b. the time for applying the strategy is not enough during the class time; c. fast learners should wait for slower learners to catch up;

d. a large amount of time is committed for the correctives; e. supports that all learners need to learn equally.

The DeLEC framework discussed in the next sections addresses these criticisms.

3.3.2.

Bloom’s LFM applied in SGs

After examining many educational models, Bloom’s LFM was adopted and adapted for designing SGs aiming to support learners in achieving deeper learning. The main reasons for selecting Bloom’s LFM are the following:

a. LFM is an integrated learning model providing instruction, formative assessment and feedback and can facilitate the design of such learning procedure for SGs aiming in achieving deeper learning;

b. LFM includes iterations to help learners achieve learning which is a procedure that can be designed and applied in SGs;

c. LFM refers to learning mastery which, as a learning achievement, is considered compatible with deeper learning.

The LFM learning process applied to SGs aims to overcome:

• the criticism discussed earlier (see Section 3.3.1.) related to lesson time constraints;

73 • the criticism about the waiting time of successful learners for other learners

to reach the same level as them.

SGs, designed to integrate LFM, can deliver learning independently of time constraints because the serious game, can be played individually, according to the time and pace of the learners. Moreover, the use of instruction and formative assessment in SGs can be played repeatedly as many times required to achieve learning.

3.3.3.

Bloom’s applied in DeLEC framework

Bloom’s LFM provides the foundation of DeLEC framework. The LFM components of instruction, formative assessment, feedback, repetitions, and correctives provide a potential solution for designing SGs for achieving deeper learning.

DeLEC framework suggests the development of a new learning process that adapts Bloom’s LFM for SGs. The DeLEC framework includes:

a. instruction;

b. formative assessment and feedback; c. repetition;

integrating two more components: a. empathy;

b. creativity.

Empathy is the component integrated into the instruction phase and serves the purposes of motivating and engaging learners facilitating learning more effectively (see Figure 3.4).

Creativity is the component proposed for LFM’s enrichment activities. Creative activities allow the transfer of knowledge gained during the instruction phase into new contexts transforming the new knowledge into deeper knowledge (see Figure 3.4). This is translated into transforming the surface knowledge to deeper knowledge.