Get important education news and analysis delivered straight to your inbox
MIT BLOSSOMS, one of the most exciting and effective uses of educational technology to help high school students learn math and science, doesn’t boast the latest in artificial intelligence or adaptive algorithms. Its secret weapon is, rather, a canny understanding of human psychology—both students’ and teachers’. Technologically speaking, its basic model could be executed with an old television and VCR.
In fact, it was. BLOSSOMS was born a decade ago when Richard Larson, a professor of engineering systems at MIT and an early advocate of educational technology, visited a rundown school in rural central China. The classroom was lit by two bare bulbs hanging from the ceiling, and was so cold that students kept their coats on inside. It did have a used TV and VCR, which the teacher employed to play a video of a science lecture. She would show a few minutes of the tape, then turn it off and engage her students in a surprisingly dynamic, interactive lesson. This was followed by a few more minutes of the video, then back to interaction with the students.
Larson was intrigued by this homespun version of “blended learning.” Back in the U.S., he undertook an effort to create science and math videos that were designed to be interrupted, to be complemented by active learning sessions conducted by a classroom teacher. Larson himself starred in the first video, a lesson on triangles, random numbers, and probability that featured the professor sawing a yardstick into pieces. Today there are more than a hundred lessons available free on the BLOSSOMS website, covering topics in mathematics, engineering, physics, biology, and chemistry, all taught by experts in their fields.
Each lesson offers a series of brief video segments, plus a teacher’s guide to the classroom active-learning sessions. A lesson about mathematical models in epidemiology, for example, intersperses video segments explaining how infectious diseases are spread and controlled with role-playing exercises in which students see for themselves (via classmates who don red, green, or blue-colored hats) how taking preventive measures reduces the risk of contracting illness. The lessons are now used in schools all over the U.S. and countries all over the world, including China, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Brazil.
Clearly, MIT BLOSSOMS (the name stands for Blended Learning Open Source Science Or Math Studies) isn’t gaining fans by virtue of whiz-bang technology. Rather, it exerts its appeal through an unassuming but remarkably sophisticated understanding of what it is that students and teachers actually need. It’s an understanding that is directly at odds with the assumptions of most of the ed tech universe.
For example: BLOSSOMS is not “student-centered.” In its Twitter profile, the program is described as “teacher-centric”— heresy at a moment when teachers are supposed to be the “guide on the side,” not the “sage on the stage.” The attention of students engaged in a BLOSSOMS lesson, it’s expected, will be directed at the “guest teacher” on the video or at the classroom teacher leading the interactive session.
BLOSSOMS is not “BYOD” — bring your own device. “When the BLOSSOMS lesson begins, the lids of students’ laptops go down and their smart phones go off,” says Richard Larson. “Students are looking at the video, at the teacher, or at each other, not at their own screens.”
And BLOSSOMS does not encourage each student to work at his or her own pace. The point of the interactive exercises is to have students work as a team, arriving together at the finish line.
All this is blasphemy in view of the hardening orthodoxy of the ed tech establishment. And all this is perfectly aligned with what research in psychology and cognitive science tells us about how students learn. We know that students do not make optimal choices when directing their own learning; especially when they’re new to a subject, they need guidance from an experienced teacher. We know that students do not learn deeply or lastingly when they have a world of distractions at their fingertips. And we know that students learn best not as isolated units but as part of a socially connected group. Modest as it is from a technological perspective, MIT BLOSSOMS is ideally designed for learning—a reminder that more and better technology does not always lead to more and better education.
BLOSSOMS is equally astute in its understanding of teachers. The program recognizes that many teachers are not content experts in math and science—but that they would like to be. BLOSSOMS feeds teachers’ hunger for professional development, for the opportunity to learn more themselves about the subject they teach.
The creators of BLOSSOMS also candidly acknowledge that many teachers are threatened by the technology moving into their classrooms—and that they have reason to feel that way. Champions of educational technology often predict (with barely disguised glee) that computers will soon replace teachers, and some school districts are already looking to ed tech as a way to reduce teaching costs. The message to teachers from the advocates of technology is often heard as: Move aside, or get left behind.
BLOSSOMS takes a more reassuring (some might say condescending) approach. Elizabeth Murray, project manager of the program, describes it as a “gentle bridge” to educational technology for teachers who might resist crossing that Rubicon. For his part, Richard Larson takes pride in the fact that BLOSSOMS is featured on the website of the National Education Association, the country’s largest teachers’ union.
Should the creators of educational technology care so much about the tender feelings of teachers, especially those inclined to stand in the way of technological progress? Yes—because it’s teachers who determine how well and how often technology is used. As savvy businesspeople, ed tech entrepreneurs should know that the “last three feet” (as they say in retail about the sale of the product to the customer) are the most important, and in schools, those three feet are the distance between teacher and student. Ed tech enthusiasts who think they can do an end run around teachers will find that teachers are still the ultimate arbiters of what’s welcome in their classrooms: witness the interactive “smart boards” introduced with such fanfare into America’s schools, now functioning as so many expensive bulletin boards.
Ed tech proponents who think that technology can “disrupt” or “transform” education on its own would do well to take a lesson from the creators of BLOSSOM, who call their program’s blend of computers and people a “teaching duet.” Their enthusiasm for the possibilities of technology is matched by an awareness of the limits of human nature.
At The Hechinger Report, we publish thoughtful letters from readers that contribute to the ongoing discussion about the education topics we cover. Please read our guidelines for more information. We will not consider letters that do not contain a full name and valid email address. You may submit news tips or ideas here without a full name, but not letters.
By submitting your name, you grant us permission to publish it with your letter. We will never publish your email address. You must fill out all fields to submit a letter.
I am uncomfortable with an argument that creates “active learning” and education technology” as opposites to each other. Technology is simply a tool. A tool that can save teachers time (eg the teachers in the article didn’t have to create the Blossoms videos), engage their students, extend the reach of accomplished teachers (e.g. Larson), and a myriad of other uses. Every tool is not good for every task.
There were two wonderful products in the early 1990s that worked on a similar principle. The Adventures of Jasper Woodbury was developed by Vanderbilt University as a series of 12 video episodes, and Tom Snyder productions developed the Math Adventures of Fizz and Martina, which was simpler yet – basically comic books on VHS, rather than full animations. (They were very charmingly illustrated by Peter Reynolds, who has gone on to write and illustrate some very popular books such as “The Dot.”) Both products had students watch in teams, collect information during the stories, and then work in teams to apply the information to solve the problems presented at points in the story. I taught using the Fizz and Martina materials, and the kids loved it. We covered the same material as in the textbook, but with far more engagement (and success). I was very sorry that neither product made much headway despite their effectivness, and am pleased to see the idea arise once again.
I agree with Rudden’s comment and strongly disagree with the statement “Champions of educational technology often predict (with barely disguised glee) that computers will soon replace teachers…” The Consortium for School Networking, ISTE, iNACOL, SETDA, and any other organization serious about technology in education champion student learning and teacher facilitation of that learning. Technology can be a valuable and maybe even a cost-cutting way to allow the teacher to personalize student learning.
Really, Annie? “All this is blasphemy in view of the hardening orthodoxy of the ed tech establishment.” As you’re someone who writes with a nuanced view of learning and how it is accomplished, I’d have expected a more nuanced view of the fact that there isn’t just one approach in the “ed tech establishment.” BLOSSOMS is a great example of good edtech that many in the industry would applaud. Indeed, the true “ed tech establishment” has decades of experience working alongside, not replacing, teachers. It’s not the establishment, but many tech-driven startups with entrepreneurs coming from outside of education, and those with a political agenda in the name of “education reform,” that exhibit the behaviors you deride.
Submit a letter