“Blend Bloom”–A Blend of Benjamin Bloom and Blended Learning

I am going to start this post with a quote. This is very typical of academics, though I rarely do that.

“[I]n our highly verbal schools, a student’s ability to understand instruction is determined largely by his verbal ability and reading comprehension. These two measures of language ability are highly correlated with achievement and GPAs across subjects at the high school and college levels…

Most change in verbal ability can be produced at the preschool and elementary levels, with progressively less change likely as the student grows older. The greatest immediate payoff in dealing with the ability to understand instruction, therefore, is likely to result from modifications in the instructions to meet individual student needs. … [Teachers may use] small-group study sessions… tutorial help… alternative textbook explanations… workbook and programed instructions units… audio-visual methods and academic games...”

Benjamin Bloom, “Mastery Learning” (1968)

The argument I want to give is this: Blended learning (specifically the combination of asynchronous online and synchronous in-person teaching) provides an effective way to modifying instructions as Bloom suggested and enabling students to learn better.

I recall that, back in UCL, I was sitting in a moral philosophy seminar on just war theory and barely understood what was happening. I picked up bits and pieces of the discussion, but I did not have a coherent picture.

I had a habit of audio-recording classes in that term and I recorded that meeting. I clearly remember, that weekend, after listening to the recording and reading the paper discussed in that meeting several times, everything suddenly makes sense. I can finally “join the dots” between what the speaker said, what the author of the paper said (the same person because he was invited to the seminar as a guest speaker!), what other students said, and the literature that the speaker was referring to.

That felt great, of course, but that’s not my point. How did I miss so much during the meeting and could understand it only after? Part of it was that I had’t read the paper carefully enough before the meeting; and part of it was certainly language. And my point is this: if I, as a student, faced these challenges and couldn’t follow the discussion in a traditional, real-time seminar, wouldn’t some of my students also face these challenges in a traditional, real-time lecture where the lecturer and the students talk through the course material?

We have to bear in mind that, a student may be able to understand the concepts, theories, and arguments being discussed but not able to follow the verbal explanations and discussion of those things. There may be language barriers: they may be learning the material in a second if not third language. Even if it is their first language, they might still be developing their listening skills to follow the discussion—it takes time to develop good listening skills. Or they may simply be not yet prepared for the discussion: sometimes they may be falling behind and cannot understand the material by listening to its explanations and discussion only once.

But these two challenges, especially the first one about language, should not prevent students from learning. Also, shouldn’t we, as philosophy educators, care the most about whether students can understand and explain philosophical concepts and argue philosophically, whichever language they use? Aren’t these our most important teaching goals?

Blended learning gives us a valuable opportunity to modify instructions in a way that helps students overcome these two challenges. Students can watch video lectures and read lecture notes as many times as they need before coming to class. And when they are in class, they will be more prepared for and engaged in the discussion. By contrast, if we put all of them in a lecture hall listening to a real-time lecture only once, interspersed or followed immediately by discussions, we will likely see a greater variety of preparedness and engagement. Or, as Bloom puts it, then we will see a normal distribution/bell curve.

One might object that real-time lectures are important because they help students develop their listening skills. Ultimately, students need to have the listening skills to participate in verbal discussions and verbally express their philosophical ideas/arguments; both require good listening skills. I agree with this. When students apply their philosophical skills in their lives, they will at least sometimes do it verbally. But this does not mean that (i) traditional, real-time lectures are the best place for students to develop their verbal skills and (ii) verbal skills should be developed at the expense of developing philosophical skills. There may be better times to develop verbal skills (small group discussions?) and there may be ways to do that without sacrificing the development of philosophical skills. Most importantly, blended learning does help students develop their verbal skills—they practice them in in-person meetings where they verbally discuss with their peers. And blended learning may do it even better because students are more prepared for the verbal discussions in the meeting.