Lessons of Mastery Learning

Full text

1
Interventions That Work
October 2010 | Volume 68 | Number 2 , Pages 52-57.
Lessons of Mastery Learning
Thomas R. Guskey
The core elements of mastery learning provide the foundation for other
innovative models, including Response to Intervention.
Every year, educators are inundated with demands to implement new instructional
interventions, all promising to improve student learning. It can be difficult, however, for school
leaders to verify these claims. Under pressure to make improvements, many schools simply
p
roceed with implementation, hoping against the odds that the promised results will materialize.
Fortunately, many innovations include elements of more established strategies for which
evidence of positive effects does exist. Among these research-supported strategies, one of the
most powerful is mastery learning. Few strategies have been implemented as broadly or
evaluated as thoroughly during the last 40 years. The core elements of mastery learning also
p
rovide the foundation for many innovations and interventions that teachers are implementing
in classrooms today.
How Mastery Learning Works
Most current applications of mastery learning stem from the work of Benjamin S. Bloom (1971,
1976, 1984), who considered how teachers might adapt the most powerful aspects of tutoring
and individualized instruction to improve student learning in general education classrooms.
Bloom suggested that although students vary widely in their learning rates and modalities, if
teachers could provide the necessary time and appropriate learning conditions, nearly all
students could reach a high level of achievement.
Bloom observed that teachers' traditional practice was to organize curriculum content into units
and then check on students' progress at the end of each unit. These checks on learning progress,
he reasoned, would be much more valuable if they were used as part of the teaching and
learning process to provide feedback on students' individual learning difficulties and then to
p
rescribe specific remediation activities.
Bloom outlined a strategy to incorporate these feedback and corrective procedures, which he
labeled mastery learning (Bloom, 1971). In using this strategy, teachers organize the important
concepts and skills they want students to acquire into learning units, each requiring about a

2
week or two of instructional time. Following high-quality initial instruction, teachers administer
a formative assessment (Bloom, Hastings, & Madaus, 1971) that identifies precisely what
students have learned well and where they still need additional work. The formative assessment
includes explicit, targeted suggestions—termed correctives—about what students must do to
correct their learning difficulties and to master the desired learning outcomes.
When students complete their corrective activities (after a class period or two), they take a
second, parallel formative assessment that addresses the same learning goals of the unit but
includes somewhat different problems, questions, or prompts. The second formative assessment
verifies whether the correctives were successful in helping students remedy their individual
learning difficulties. It also serves as a powerful motivational tool by offering students a second
chance to succeed.
Along with the corrective activities, Bloom recommended that teachers plan enrichment or
extension activities for students who demonstrate their proficiency on the first formative
assessment. Enrichment activities give these students exciting opportunities to broaden and
expand their learning.
Bloom believed that nearly all students, when provided with the more favorable learning
conditions of mastery learning, could truly master academic content (Bloom, 1976; Guskey,
1997a). A large body of research has borne him out: When compared with students in
traditionally taught classes, students in well-implemented mastery learning classes consistently
reach higher levels of achievement and develop greater confidence in their ability to learn and
in themselves as learners (Anderson, 1994; Guskey & Pigott, 1988; Kulik, Kulik, & Bangert-
Drowns, 1990).
Elements Mastery Learning and Other Interventions Share
The following core elements of mastery learning are evident in many more recently developed
instructional models and interventions. Research has consistently linked these elements to
highly effective instruction and student learning success (Guskey, 2009; Marzano, 2009;
Rosenshine, 2009).
Diagnostic Pre-Assessment with Preteaching
Most mastery learning models stress the importance of administering a quick and targeted pre-
assessment to all students before beginning instruction to determine whether they have the
p
rerequisite knowledge and skills for success in the upcoming learning sequence. Some
teachers pre-assess students orally by asking them about previous learning experiences or
understandings; others use short surveys or quizzes. For students whose preassessment results
suggest deficiencies, mastery learning teachers take time to directly teach them the needed
concepts and skills. In other words, teachers ensure the conditions for success before instruction
begins.
Leyton (1983), a student of Bloom, studied the effects of teaching identified prerequisite skills
to entering students. He began by administering a short pre-assessment to all students to
measure the knowledge and skills that teachers considered essential for learning success in their

3
high school classes. In half of the classes, teachers used the pre-assessment results to help
students identify and then review the prerequisite concepts and skills they did not possess. In
the other classes, students began learning new material immediately, but at a slower pace.
After nine weeks of instruction, students in the classes that had reviewed the missing
p
rerequisite concepts and skills were far more likely to have achieved mastery, measured by 80
p
ercent or more correct on a cumulative, summative examination. Because Leyton's study was
conducted in only a few subject areas (mathematics and foreign language) and under tightly
controlled conditions, these results must be cautiously interpreted. Still, when viewed in light of
similar research (Deshler & Schumaker, 1993; Vockell, 1993), the results demonstrate the
p
otential benefit of relatively brief preteaching for students whose prerequisite knowledge and
skills are weak or deficient.
Mastery learning's diagnostic assessment is similar to the idea of universal screening in
Response to Intervention (RTI) models (Mellard & Johnson, 2008). Most descriptions of RTI
stress the importance of initiating the instructional process with a targeted assessment of all
students that is quick, inexpensive, and focused on crucial knowledge, skills, and behaviors.
This universal screening helps teachers identify students who are at risk of learning difficulties
and are likely to require especially close monitoring during the instructional process.
High-Quality, Group-Based Initial Instruction
Every description of mastery learning, as well as other interventions such as Understanding by
Design (UbD) and RTI, emphasizes the importance of engaging all students in high-quality,
developmentally appropriate, research-based instruction in the general education classroom.
UbD (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005) includes a toolbox of instructional approaches for obtaining
the desired results from initial instruction. In many RTI models, this is considered the first level
of intervention, also called Tier 1 or primary prevention (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006). Such
instruction should be multifaceted; adapted to the context; tied to students' interests and
experiences; and differentiated according to the knowledge, skills, dispositions, and background
characteristics of students (Astleitner, 2005; Conroy, Sutherland, Snyder, & Marsh, 2008).
Progress Monitoring Through Regular Formative Assessments
Another element of mastery learning that many other interventions share is the use of regular
formative assessments to systematically monitor student progress and give students prescriptive
feedback (Hattie & Timperley, 2007). These brief classroom assessments measure the most
important learning goals from an instructional unit and typically are administered after a week
or two of instruction. They reinforce precisely what students were expected to learn, identify
what they learned well, and describe what they need to learn better.
Formative assessments vary in form depending on the subject area, the grade level, and the
learning outcomes involved. They may be short quizzes, written assignments, oral
p
resentations, skill demonstrations, or performances. In essence, formative assessments are any
device teachers use to gather evidence of student learning.

4
Formative assessments provide the basis of all programs that emphasize assessment "for"
learning, as opposed to assessment "of" learning (Stiggins, 2009). Most RTI models refer to this
component as progress monitoring. In many RTI classrooms, progress-monitoring assessments
are administered weekly, although they may be more frequent, depending on the subject area
and nature of the class.
High-Quality Corrective Instruction
It would be foolish to charge ahead knowing that students have not learned key concepts or
skills well. Following formative assessments, therefore, mastery learning teachers provide high-
quality corrective instruction designed to remedy whatever learning problems the assessments
identified.
High-quality corrective instruction is not the same as "reteaching," which often consists simply
of restating the original explanations louder and more slowly. Instead, mastery learning teachers
use corrective instruction approaches that accommodate differences in students' learning styles,
learning modalities, or types of intelligence (Sternberg, 1994). Some teachers engage students
in peer tutoring or cooperative learning groups. Others use paraprofessional instructional aides.
In mastery learning classes, corrective activities typically add about 10–20 percent more time to
initial learning units (Block, Efthim, & Burns, 1989). For a unit of a week or two in length, for
example, corrective instruction might last one or two days. Bloom (1974) argued, however, that
intense, individualized assistance offered early in an instructional sequence would drastically
reduce the time needed for remediation in later units. Because corrective instruction guarantees
that students have the learning prerequisites for subsequent units, initial instruction in later units
can proceed more rapidly, allowing teachers to cover just as much material as they would using
more traditional methods (Guskey, 2008).
Providing instructional alternatives based on differences in students' learning styles or
modalities is the basis of differentiated instruction (Tomlinson, Brimijoin, & Narvaez, 2008). In
the RTI model, mastery learning's corrective instruction may be referred to as Tier 2
intervention or secondary prevention (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006). Like corrective instruction, this
intervention usually takes place in the general education classroom but may be directed by
another teacher or instructional aide.
Both corrective instruction and Tier 2 intervention emphasize the use of small-group instruction
with individualized assistance organized according to the needs and skill level of the students
involved. Both also stress that instruction at this level must be qualitatively different from the
initial instruction, offering students an alternative approach and additional time to learn.
Second, Parallel Formative Assessments
In mastery learning, assessments are not a one-shot, do-or-die experience; instead, they are part
of an ongoing effort to help students learn. So after corrective activities, mastery learning
teachers give students a second, parallel formative assessment that helps determine the
effectiveness of the corrective instruction and offers students a second chance to demonstrate
mastery and experience success. RTI similarly requires frequent assessment of student learning

5
p
rogress to check on the effectiveness of intervention strategies.
Mastery learning teachers make a point of recognizing those students who do well on the initial
formative assessments. But they also acknowledge that students who do well on the second
formative assessment have learned just as much and deserve the same grades as those who
scored well on their first try.
The driver's license examination offers a comparable example. Many individuals do not pass
their driver's test on the first attempt. On the second or third try, however, they may reach the
same high level of performance as others did on their first. Would it be appropriate to restrict
these drivers, for instance, to driving in fair weather only? In inclement weather, should they be
required to pull over and park until the weather clears? That would be ridiculous. Because they
eventually met the same high performance standards as those who passed on their initial
attempt, they receive the same privileges. The same should hold true for students who engage in
corrective activities and eventually show that they, too, have learned well.
Enrichment or Extension Activities
Mastery learning teachers also offer effective enrichment activities that provide valuable,
challenging, and rewarding learning experiences for learners who have mastered the material
and do not need corrective instruction. These activities should enable successful learners to
explore in greater depth a range of related topics that keenly interest them but lie beyond the
established curriculum. Many teachers draw from activities developed for gifted and talented
students when planning enrichment activities, including challenging academic games and
exercises, various multimedia projects, and peer tutoring (Whiting, Van Burgh, & Render,
1995). They are also a part of classrooms implementing differentiated instruction (Tomlinson,
2006).
Students engaged in enrichment activities gain valuable learning experiences without
necessarily moving ahead in the instructional sequence. This makes it easier for other students
who have been doing corrective work (or Tier 2 intervention in an RTI model) to resume their
p
lace in the regular instructional sequence when they are done. Otherwise, they would be
p
laced in the impossible situation of having to remedy problems from the past while trying to
keep up with the new concepts and skills presented in subsequent units.
The challenge for teachers in implementing enrichment or extension activities is to ensure that
these activities engage students in truly valuable learning experiences. Having successful
learners simply bide their time, doing more, harder problems or completing busywork while
others are engaged in corrective instruction would be highly inappropriate. Enrichment
activities must provide these students with opportunities to pursue their interests, extend their
understanding, and broaden their learning experiences.
Sustaining and Extending Success
Researchers today generally recognize the value of the core elements of mastery learning. As a
result, fewer studies are being conducted on the mastery learning process itself. Instead,
researchers are looking for ways to attain even more impressive gains by improving students'

6
learning processes, curriculum and instructional materials, and the home learning environment
and support and providing a focus on higher level thinking skills. Work on integrating mastery
learning with other innovative strategies appears especially promising (Guskey, 1997b).
As we strive to improve achievement even further, we can continue to learn from the core
elements of mastery learning. Attention to these elements will enable educators to make great
strides in their efforts to close achievement gaps and help all students achieve excellence.
References
Anderson, S. A. (1994). Synthesis of research on mastery learning. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 382 567).
Astleitner, H. (2005). Principles of effective instruction: General standards for teachers and
instructional designers. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 32(1), 3–8.
Block, J. H., Efthim, H. E., & Burns, R. B. (1989). Building effective mastery learning schools.
N
ew York: Longman.
Bloom, B. S. (1971). Mastery learning. In J. H. Block (Ed.), Mastery learning: Theory and
p
ractice (pp. 47–63). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Bloom, B. S. (1974). Time and learning. American Psychologist, 29(9), 682–688.
Bloom, B. S. (1976). Human characteristics and school learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Bloom, B. S. (1984). The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one
tutoring. Educational Leadership, 41(8), 4–17.
Bloom, B. S., Hastings, J. T., & Madaus, G. (1971). Handbook on formative and summative
evaluation of student learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Conroy, M. A., Sutherland, K. S., Snyder, A. L., & Marsh, S. (2008). Classwide interventions:
Effective instruction makes a difference. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(6), 24–30.
Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. (1993). Strategy mastery by at-risk students: Not a simple
matter. Elementary School Journal, 94(2), 153–167.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to Response to Intervention: What, why, and
how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 93–99.
Guskey, T. R. (1997a). Implementing Mastery Learning (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Guskey, T. R. (1997b). Putting it all together: Integrating educational innovations. In S. J.
Caldwell (Ed.), Professional development in learning-centered schools (pp. 130–149). Oxford,
OH: National Staff Development Council.
Guskey, T. R. (2008). The rest of the story. Educational Leadership, 65(4), 28–35.
Guskey, T. R. (2009). Mastery learning. In T. L. Good (Ed.), 21st century education: A
reference handbook (Vol. I, pp. 194–202). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

7
Guskey, T. R., & Pigott, T. D. (1988). Research on group-based mastery learning programs: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Research, 81, 197–216.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research,
77(1), 81–112.
Kulik, C. C., Kulik, J. A., & Bangert-Drowns, R. L. (1990). Effectiveness of mastery learning
p
rograms: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 60, 265–299.
Leyton, F. S. (1983). The extent to which group instruction supplemented by mastery of initial
cognitive prerequisites approximates the learning effectiveness of one-to-one tutorial methods.
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Chicago.
Marzano, R. J. (2009). Setting the record straight on "high yield" strategies. Phi Delta Kappan,
91(1), 30–37.
Mellard, D. F., & Johnson, E. (2008). RTI: A practitioner's guide to implementing Response to
I
ntervention. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Rosenshine, B. (2009). Systematic instruction. In T. L. Good (Ed.), 21st century education: A
reference handbook (Vol. I, pp. 235–243). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sternberg, R. J. (1994). Allowing for thinking styles. Educational Leadership, 52(3), 36–40.
Stiggins, R. (2009). Assessment "for" learning in upper elementary grades. Phi Delta Kappan,
90(6), 419–421.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2006). An alternative to ability grouping. Principal Leadership, 6(8), 31–32.
Tomlinson, C. A., Brimijoin, K., & Narvaez, L. (2008). The differentiated school: Making
revolutionary changes in teaching and learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Vockell, E. L. (1993). Why schools fail and what we can do about it. Clearing House, 66(4),
200–205.
Whiting, B., Van Burgh, J. W., & Render, G. F. (1995, April). Mastery learning in the
classroom. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, San Francisco, CA.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by Design (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA:
ASCD.
Thomas R. Guskey is professor, Department of Educational, School, and Counseling
Psychology, College of Education, University of Kentucky, Lexington; Guskey@uky.edu.
Copyright © 2010 by Thomas R. Guskey