innovation mastery learning in theory and in practical...2020/09/02 · mastery learning in theory...

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttps://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=csje20

Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research

ISSN: 0031-3831 (Print) 1470-1170 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/csje20

Mastery Learning in Theory and in PracticalInnovation

Erkki Lahdes

To cite this article: Erkki Lahdes (1983) Mastery Learning in Theory and in Practical Innovation,Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 27:2, 89-107, DOI: 10.1080/0031383830270202

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0031383830270202

Published online: 07 Jul 2006.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 39

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=csje20https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/csje20https://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/0031383830270202https://doi.org/10.1080/0031383830270202https://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=csje20&show=instructionshttps://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=csje20&show=instructionshttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/0031383830270202#tabModulehttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/0031383830270202#tabModule

Mastery Learning in Theory andin Practical InnovationERKKI LAHDES

Abstract: Lahdes, E. 1983 Mastery Learning in Theory and Practical Inno-vation. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 27, 89-107. Masterylearning strategies represent a bold attempt to develop an 'encouraging' theoryand practice of teaching. It has a theoretical and philosophical foundation,as a result of which mastery learning stands out from many other more narrowly-based innovatory schools of thought. In this article main traits of the theoryare sketched as well as some of its main relations to other educational innovatoryapproaches. Against this background a Finnish school experiment is presentedin which the experimental group's curriculum followed the principles of masterylearning theory. The positive results are discussed as well as the masterylearning strategy's advantages and the practical difficulties restricting its usagein schools.

Erkki Lahdes, Professor, Institute of Education, University of Turku, Finland.Address: Lemminkäisenkatu 1, 20520 Turku 52.

IntroductionThe concept of 'mastery learning' was introduced by Bloom (1968),who had been heavily influenced by the 'model of school learning'propounded by Carroll (1963), and the symposium Mastery Learning:Theory and Practice, edited by Block (1971), came to play a significantrole in propagating the idea of mastery learning. Bloom published a newarticle the same year, 'Individual Differences in School Achievement:A Vanishing Point?', which demonstrated that the theory was con-tinuing to develop, and the re-drafted theory appeared in 1976 in thevolume Human Characteristics and School Learning. Here Bloomdescribed three conceptions of students' learning potential which hadenjoyed currency in recent decades:

1. 'There are good learners and there are poor learners.' It was believedthat relatively stable differences obtained between pupils in theirrate of learning, and that these could be traced in their intelligence,aptitudes, and the results of achievement tests.

90 ERKKI LAHDES

2. 'There are faster learners and there are slower learners.' Accordingto Carroll (1963), the individual's speed of learning is not a stablefeature, and the level of achievement of slower learners can beimproved by providing them with adequate time for learning andwith appropriate remedial instruction.

3. 'Most students become very similar with regard to learning ability,rate of learning, and motivation for further learning — whenprovided with favourable learning conditions.'

In support of his ideas, Bloom developed a 'theory of school learning'.There are three interdependent variables which are central to thistheory (Bloom 1976, 10):

a. The extent to which the student has already learned the basicprerequisites to the learning to be accomplished.

b. The extent to which the student is (or can be) motivated to engagein the learning process.

c. The extent to which the instruction to be given is appropriateto the learner.

More specifically, the theory deals with student characteristics,instruction, and learning outcome (see Figure 1).

STUDENTCHARACTERISTICS

Cognitive Entry ^BehaviorsAffective Entry ».Characteristics

INSTRUCTION

LearningTask (S)

tQuality ofInstruction

LEARNINGOUTCOMES

^ Level and Type ofAchievement

—•• Rate of Learning

—*• Affective Outcomes

Fig. 1. The theory of school learning (Bloom 1976, 18).

The variables occurring in this theory have also been propounded ina slightly different form (Anderson 1973). The theory is causalistic:an effect is exerted by specific variables on learning, teaching, andlearning outcome. The theory does not set out merely to provide anabstraction or myth, but to predict the course of events in learning

MASTERY LEARNING IN THEORY AND PRACTICE 91

and instruction. It is also intended as a general theory, i.e. it explicatesand predicts school learning irrespective of the objectivs involved.

Since, under the theory, the individual's personal history (experiences,characteristics, etc.) has a decisive effect on his or her school success,in 'conventional' instruction the differences between the pupils willexpand, following the laws of causality. What mastery learning strategiesattempt to do is to break this fatal determinism. They aim to raise thestandard of instruction in such a way as to take into account the indi-vidual's characteristics in the optimum manner. Ensuring favourablelearning conditions for each individual, Bloom argues, will lead to theattainment by the majority of learning aptitude, rate of learning,and motivation.

The same basic ideas are contained in the following definition fromthe International Dictionary of Education (1979, 215):

'Mastery learning. School of thought which rests on the assumption thatmastery of a topic, field of human knowledge or human behavio(u)r is theoret-ically possible for all individuals provided that each learner is given the optimumquality of instruction which is appropriate for his/her particular make-up andthat each learner is given the time that he/she needs.'

More recently, the desire has been expressed in mastery learning circlesthat research attention should be switched away from the stable variablesaffecting learning outcome, to variables which are alterable, eitherbefore the teaching-learning processes or as a part of these processes(Bloom 1980, 6; 1981,1). In his book All Our Children Learning (1981),Bloom has also further developed his optimistic view of education,and offers an assessment of mastery learning on the basis of Carroll'smodels. Particular attention is paid to making the home variables morefavourable to school learning, and to the optimalization of both thequality of instruction and the student's ability to understand it with theaim of encouraging the student to spend an adequate amount of timeon the learning (the 'perseverance variable'). Behind this, clearly, is anoptimistic interpretation of education: that human nature is capableof cultural development by means of education.

The aim of the present article is to survey the current state of devel-opment in mastery learning, in terms both of theory and of instructionalpractice, with special reference to points that have emerged in masterylearning experimentation and research in Finland.

92 ERKKI LAHDES

Mastery Learning in Practical InnovationThere are many alternative strategies for mastery learning, but two maintendencies can be identified (Brandt 1979,159): 'One is the Kellerapproach, called 'Personalized System of Instruction', in which eachstudent goes at his or her own pace. The other is the group-basedapproach, in which the teacher teaches a class, and uses feedback asthe basis for individualizing the corrective procedures for the students.'In this article, the term mastery learning will refer specifically to thegroup-teaching approach. It is significant that Bloom emphasizes theapplication of mastery learning strategies in normal teaching situations,where the teacher has a relatively large group of pupils; moreover,Bloom's theory is explicitly intended as a model of school learning.

The supporters of mastery learning constitute one of the innovatoryschools of thought within modern school instruction in the UnitedStates, backed up by their own philosophy of education and their ownpractical strategies. Lahdes (1980) has made a comparative assessmentof mastery learning and other innovatory approaches, and arrived atthe following conclusions:

Educational technology represents a modern didactic approach forwhich it is difficult to offer any universally valid definition. It hasnevertheless exercised a marked influence on instruction: the planningand execution of instruction have become more systematic; moreattention has been paid to the pupil's characteristics at the point ofoutset; and a new form of teaching (programmed instruction) has beendeveloped, together with a constantly expanding range of teaching aidsand materials.

It is natural that in the literature on mastery learning projects andresearch, links emerge with educational technology. In mastery learningstrategies, use is made of the aids, materials, and instructional techniquesof educational technology, and another shared feature is the care spenton planning. In consequence, mastery learning has come under attackfrom the 'humanist' critics (Barone 1978; Horton 1979). Suspicionhas centred on its theoretical basis, categorized as behaviourist psy-chology; on the lack of divergent thinking; and on the fragmentationof learning into small units, etc. A similar categorization is indicatedby the definition of mastery learning models and their 'training' ter-minology in the Encyclopedia of Educational Evaluation (1977,237):'... such a model is probably more generally applicable to training in


specific skills than to general education efforts as we usually think ofthem. '

In the writings of the leading mastery learning educationalists, onthe other hand (Anderson 1979; Block 1979; Bloom 1976, 1978, 1981),there is a marked desire to reduce the technological aspect of masterylearning; what is important in teaching is people, not aids and materials.These authors distance themselves from the extremes of the technologicalapproach, and emphasize the importance of students' 'peak experices',of instruction in artistic subjects, and of creative thinking, etc.

Another complex school of thought is represented by the Competence-Based Education (CBE) movement, which is characterized by the desireto define more precisely the level of achievement to be demanded ofthe pupils at various stages of schooling and in different subjects.According to Daloz (1978), the CBE movement is characterized by thefollowing features: curricular planning is derived from descriptions ofthe learning results desired; descriptions of competence are derivedlogically from specified role models; these descriptions are criterion-based; and the methods of assessment are determined in advance andare specific.

One point clearly shared in common by mastery learning and CBEis their mutual emphasis on the necessity of defining objectives. In theview of Block (1979), both mastery learning and CBE aim at the devel-opment of 'competent' students. Hyman and Cohen (1979), however,criticize CBE for the inadequate linking of the teaching event to objec-tives and evaluation. Lahdes (1980) identifies three basic differencesbetween the two approaches:

1. CBE recognizes the student's own objectives, and thus also theemergence of diverging objectives. This feature is not emphasizedin mastery learning, which operates in terms of the achievementby all students of specified objectives.

2. Mastery learning is more closely linked to socially defined curriculathan CBE, which allows for greater curricular freedom.

3. Mastery learning is a more comprehensive approach, in that itconcentrates on the teaching process itself as the crucial eventbetween objectives and evaluation.

Adaptive Education also encompasse a number of differing inter-pretations. The best-known representative of this approach is Glaser

94 ERKKI LAHDES

(1972). The essential feature, however, is that school teaching or theschool system should adapt, in one way or another, to the characteristicsof the pupil. Adaptive education can thus be seen as the opposite ofselective education, in which the school and teaching are the primaryfactors, to which the pupil is expected to adapt, while the school hasthe right to choose its pupils.

Anderson (1979) rejects selective education, and regards masterylearning as one form of adaptive education; other forms include theIGE, IPI, and PLAN systems. Each of these systems realizes one ormore of the principles of adaptive education. Mastery learning does notset out the test pupils' individual characteristics with a view to placingthem in groups of appropriate ability or directing them to differenteducational careers; rather, it stresses the importance of feedback andcorrective instruction. In addition, it accepts collective teaching methods.These points are a result of the aim of mastery learning to provideadaptive education in conventional school classes.

Anderson (1979) sees the goal of adaptive education to be the adap-tive, independent student, capable of the higher mental processes, self-confident, internally rather than externally motivated, and sociallyadaptable and responsible.

This attractive educational ideal would no doubt also be acceptableto Cronbach (1971), who criticizes mastery learning strategies for theirexcessive 'essentialism', 'training' tendencies, and neglect of the highermental processes. The means propounded by Cronbach and the ATIsystem are different from those of mastery learning, since in ATI whatis emphasized are the tested characteristics of the pupil, while less atten-tion is paid to teaching strategies.

In terms of a selective-adaptive dimension in education, three stagesmay be distinguished (Lahdes 1980,78):

1. Selective education: the pupil is required to adapt (cognitive andaffective characteristics), while the environment (instruction andcurriculum) remains stable.

2. Pupil-centred adaptive education: the environment adapts, whilethe pupil represents a stable factor.

3. Teaching-centred adaptive education: the pupil is to a certain extentheld constant, but to some extent also is required to adapt tocurricular expectations, with the aid of adaptive and remedialteaching.


Glaser and Cronbach belong to the second of these categories, whilemastery learning falls into the third. A differential psychology approach,based on the differentiation of individuals or on selection in terms ofrelatively stable aptitudes, is alien to mastery learning.

All in all, the aims of mastery learning are the overall reform of schooleducation but in realistic terms. Consequently, mastery learning rejectsthe extremes both of individual education and pupil-centred adaptiveeducation, together with the educational technology associated withthese, and also of over-reliance on the definition of objectives or onevaluation. Its realism can be seen in its fundamental assumption of theuse of school-based curricula, its acceptance and use of collective formsof teaching, its recognition of the school as a social community, andits emphasis on the objectives-teaching-evaluation process in its entirety.With reference to differentiation or individualization of teaching, MLplays down any differentiation of objectives, though it does acceptdifferentiation in learning time and teaching techniques, regardingthese in fact as essential to effective teaching.

Mastery Learning Strategies in PracticeMastery learning is considered by Bloom (1979,160) to have gainedwide currency, and without doubt it has been constantly expanding(see Block 1979; Hyman & Cohen 1979). Lahdes (1980) found almosta hundred articles in the ERIC listings from 1976-79 in which masterylearning was one of the key terms; of these, around 60% were concernedwith high school or college level education, and only a few with earlyor primary education. The subjects investigated most were instructionin the pupils' native language, natural sciences, and mathematics.

It is impossible, on the basis of the literature, to obtain any clearimpression of the effectiveness of mastery learning strategies. Data areusually absent on the validity or reliability of the investigations. Ingen-kamp (1979) analyzed 19 investigations, the majority of which reportedresults favourable to mastery learning; but Ingenkamp has sharpcriticism to make of the research designs used. Burns (1979) reports onthe findings from 97 mastery learning studies; the results are favourableto mastery learning, since with three exceptions, experimental groupsworking with ML strategies obtained better results than control groupsusing traditional teaching methods. The results are also statisticallysignificant in most investigations, especially with reference to cognitivelearning, the other sectors used being affective learning and memory.Burns considers, therefore, that mastery learning usually leads to more

96 ERKKl LAHDES

effective teaching, although he makes certain reservations and regardsfurther research as desirable.

Among the articles from the ERIC listings studied by Lahdes (1980),almost 40 presented research findings, and a distinct majority of thesesupported the contention that mastery learning is more effective than'traditional' teaching, specifically with reference to cognitive learningresults. It is however unknown how many investigations have failed toconfirm the effectiveness of mastery learning, and therefore remainedunpublished.

In the investigations from the ERIC listings, the research designvaried enormously, including a small number of laboratory test designs.Since the majority of mastery learning studies have been carried outas field research, however, the internal validity of research conductedunder 'normal' school conditions deteriorates, while the external validityimproves. This is due to the difficulty in field research conditions ofestablishing a 'pure' situation for comparison in which the impact ofthe mastery learning variable can be maximized. A further difficultyarises from the wide variety of mastery learning strategies used. It is alsoimpossible, in field research, to monitor all the possible variablesinvolved, and it must further be borne in mind that many learningoutcome variables are extremely difficult to measure reliably.

It is obvious that in each case there will have been a number of factorscontributing to the fact that mastery learning was effective, as is reflectedin the ERIC material. One significant factor appears to have been theextra time provided for slower pupils, especially in the initial stages.The most important factor, however, appears at the moment to be theflexible use of the feedback-corrective process (Bloom 1979,159). It isoften stressed that the teaching material used in corrective instructionshould be different from that used in the original teaching phase, i.e.the same thing should be taught in different ways.

Although the strategies used vary in practice according to localconditions, certain basic features always characterize mastery learning,e.g. the five typical basic components put forward by Ryan and Schmidt(1979):

— formal specification of cognitive objectives;— division of course content and objectives into instructional units;— formative/diagnostic evaluation;— corrective and/or remedial instruction;— criterion-referenced summative evaluation.


Various forms of in-service training have been used in conjunctionwith the introduction of mastery learning strategies.

Experimentation and Research in FinlandIn the early 1970s, when Finland started to change from a selectiveparallel school system to a uniform nine-year comprehensive schoolsystem, increasing interest was attached to differences in achievementbetween pupils.

Specifically, the school authorities set out to develop teaching methodsto overcome students' learning difficulties by appropriating funds forexperimental didactic projects and research. The 1971 School Committee(1973) laid down the following guiding principles for the developmentof teaching methods:

— the provision of remedial instruction for a student as soon ashis/her progress stops due to learning difficulties;

— investigation of the appropriateness of the learning process;— concentration of attention on the analysis of problem areas in

each subject;— provision of enough time to solve the subject area problems.

These principles reflect the influence of mastery learning ideas, whichhad been introduced in Finland from the beginning of the 1970s. TheNational Board of Schools became interested in experimentation in anddevelopment of masterly learning programs, and set aside funds bothfor this purpose and for the training of teachers for the experimentalprograms.

Since students' learning difficulties emerge most often in the initialstages of schooling, it was considered important to develop masterylearning strategies to help first and second graders achieve certain basicobjectives in the core subjects of mathematics and Finnish. Respon-sibility for conducting the research was allocated to the Faculty ofEducation at the University of Turku.

The experiment was conducted in the school district of Kaarina, nearTurku, where the local school authorities had expressed interest. Initially,all the eight classes were involved; the teachers (N = 8) of these classesformed a core group, who received 30 hours of instruction in the theory,planning, and implementation of mastery learning. A control group,from the same age range, was taken from the town of Salo, also near

98 ERKKI LAHDES

Turku. The experiment started at the beginning of the autumn termin 1976. The first grade classes in Kaarina comprised 179 pupils, andthose in Salo 217 (in the spring of 1977). In the following year, whenthe experiment was continued, the number of pupils in the controlclasses was still 217, whereas the population of the experimental classesdropped to 160, due to pupils moving away from the area, or repeatingtheir first-grade year, and to the deletion of one entire class from theproject (Soininen 1981): Both the municipality of Kaarina and the townof Salo are by the social structure of their inhabitants typical industri-alized municipalities of southern Finland.

The research design selected for the project was Campbell & Stanley's(1963) 'non-equivalent control group' model, i.e. a 'quasi-experimental'design. Since the project involved testing out a 'new' theory in theFinnish comprehensive school, the primary question to be answeredwas whether it had proved possible successfully to implement a masterylearning/teaching program in the Finnish environment; the findingsindicate that the Kaarina project did meet the objectives set, despitesome practical problems and the failure to implement all of the principlesformulated at the outset. The problems were however of a generalnature, and typical of experimental situations such as this one.

The main problems can be divided into cognitive and affectiveobjective areas, the former being the more prominent, and the centralquestions for these two areas are (Soininen 1978,168):

1. What kinds of results can be obtained in the cognitive objectivearea by utilizing different teaching strategies?

2. What kinds of results can be obtained in the affective objective areaby utilizing different teaching strategies?

The basic framework of the strategy was based on the same fivecomponents as outlined above by Ryan and Schmidt (1979). Each year,the teachers for each of the school districts dew up a written localcurriculum. Within the teaching situation, nevertheless, each teacherhad didactic freedom to solve teaching problems flexibly as they arose,although it was agreed to make as much use as possible in these situationsof 'cues' to the pupils, of reinforcement, of active participation by thepupils, and of feedback and correctives, together with anticipatoryremedial teaching at the beginning of each unit.

Although no precise hypothesis was stated for the first (cognitive)question, it could be assumed that groups taught by mastery learningstrategies would differ from groups receiving traditional teaching inhaving a higher level of achievement and a smaller standard deviation,


especially at the completion of the second grade, both in mathematicsand in Finnish. This assumption was confirmed, at least in part; for theresults for the experimental group (even in Grade 1) were higher, andthe standard deviations consistently smaller, than those for the grouptaught by conventional approaches. The differences were usuallyconsistent but not always statistically significant. The assumption issupported also by observations of pupils who have not reached thecriterion limit (point) in summative tests (see Table I). Findings thussupport the assumption that the mastery learning method reduces theextent of deviation in achievement in comparison with traditionalteaching.

Nor was any precise hypothesis stated for the second question; itwas merely assumed that although differences in the student's overallattitudes towards school by the end of the second year would be negli-gible, such attitudinal differences as might emerge would manifestthemselves as differences in pupils' attitudes towards particular subjects,and that the attitudes of pupils taught by mastery learning strategieswould be slightly more positive than those of the control group.

The findings from this experiment support the mastery learningtheory in that dividing the learning material into units, and usingimmediate and continuing reinforcement, improve pupils' overallattitudes to school and self-image; but it was not found that the masterylearning method improved pupils' attitudes towards specific subjectareas (Soininen 1981).

Table I. The differences between the experimental and the control groups in thesummative tests at the end of the first and second grades (Soininen 1981, 113-128).

Summativetests

Experimentalgroup

N X S.D. N

Controlgroup

X S.D.

Significance

t P <

N (%) undercriterion

pointexp.contr.

1. gradeMathematics 1 172 29.3 3.1 212 28.9 4.3 1.11 — 10.5 14.6Finnish 1 168 45.7 5.1 206 41.7 8.9 5.10 .001 6.0 23.3Finish 2 167 39.3 7.2 205 32.9 10.8 6.52 .001 31.0 61.0

2. gradeMathematics 1 157 28.5 3.5 197 27.0 4.5 3.23 .001 12.7 26.9Mathematics 2 159 27.3 4.3 202 24.9 6.7 3.93 .001 30.2 40.1Finnish 1 157 39.6 7.5 200 38.0 9.1 1.83 — 26.8 40.0

100 ERKK1 LAHDES

DiscussionThe great advantage of mastery learning strategies is that they areintended to be implemented within 'conventional' schools, wherecollective teaching methods play a large part. In experiments, difficultieshave, nevertheless, emerged, and some of these, in terms both of practiceand of principle, have been collated by Horton (1979). Teaching staffare not always capable of formulating viable objectives or curricula;there is a shortage of materials and aids; differences in the pupils' rateof progress causes complications; and the planning of the teachingplaces (at least initially) additional demands on the teachers' time.

Horton (1979) also points to the lack of alternative teaching materialsfor use in remedial instruction, especially where the objective is to guidethe pupils to think creatively and independently. Various other authorsmake similar criticisms, as do Dollo & Meredith (1977,29) in theircritique of the generality of mastery learning strategies: 'In fact, themodel requires a variety of skills in addition to competence in theirown content areas. The Model itself provides an outline of proceduresto follow, but never deals with the actual implementation on a practicallevel. By appearing to be simple and by emphasizing the evaluationaspect of learning, the model lends itself to misinterpretation andmisuse.'

Dolly and Meredith's criticism, that the model is too general, is a validone. This generality is, on the other hand, an advantage, for it permits awider range of application of the theory. The difficulties which emergedin the Finnish projects described here were similar to those outlinedby Horton and other critics, but it was still felt that mastery learningstrategies were worth implementing, and the Finnish National Board ofGeneral Education (National Board of Schools) has used the findingsfrom this project as the basis for an amended objective-oriented cur-riculum for Finnish and mathematics in the first and second grades.

The Finnish experience does indicate that teachers need training forthe implementation of mastery learning. It is perfectly within the abilityof teaching staff, with assistance in details from research staff, andworking as a team, to draw up viable curricula for their own schooldistrict. On the other hand, it is also essential to rely on the ability ofeach teacher to solve problems as they arise in the teaching situation,for the problems are specific to classes and to individual pupils; a cur-riculum is no cookbook complete with ready recipes for every awkwardsituation. Staff meetings also have an important role to play in the


pooling of teachers' experiences, the study of shared problems, and theplanning of anticipatory remedial teaching, etc. (Lahdes 1980).

Once it has been established that a curriculum is first carefully drawnup covering the main points, and that teachers' didactic freedom withinthe teaching situation is recognized, then the justification for Dolly andMeredith's pessimistic conclusions is removed. This does not mean,however, that the implementation of mastery learning is painless;progress must be carefully planned, and Block's (1977) injunction toproceed with caution — 'Start small!' — must be observed, while theecology of the classroom must also be taken into account.

On the basis of the findings of empirical research, Bloom (1976,110)has also attempted to construct overall models of the factors accountingfor variance in learning outcome. He finds that teacher characteristicssuch as age, length and type of pre-service training, amount of ex-perience, teacher attitudes, and salaries account for no more than aboutfive per cent of the variance, as also applies to characteristics of theclassroom or school such as number of students, equipment and facilitiesavailable, expenditure per student, and school organization and admin-istration. Bloom believes that it is the teaching and not the teacherthat is central, and that it is the environment for learning in the class-room, rather than the physical characteristics of the class and classroom,that is important for school learning. The most important factor,however, emerges as student characteristics (65%), comprising twocomponents: cognitive entry behaviours (accounting alone for 50%),and affective entry characteristics. The remainder of the variance (25%)can be accounted for by the teaching process itself and the quality ofinstruction. The contribution of the various groups of factors in ac-counting for learning outcome variance can be illustrated diagram-matically as in Figure 2.

The proportions allocated to each group of factors in Fig. 2 are derivedfrom the correlations obtained in empirical investigations between thevariables constituting each group and learning outcome. The numbersthus represent bold generalizations, although they are not devoid ofempirical support. What they depict is the situation in 'conventional'teaching, i.e. where generally speaking the pupils are collectively taughtthe same things, and as a result of which the differentials between thepupils constantly increase.

It is a function of one's educational philosophy to what extent oneaccepts such a situation and justifies it as 'natural', e.g. on the groundsof pupils' aptitudes and hereditary characteristics. In mastery learning,

102 ERKKI LAHDES

1. STUDENThomeenvironment

\• cognitive entry

behaviors (50%)

t• affective entry

behaviors (25%)

2. CHARACTERISTICSOF THE CLASS-ROOM AND SCHOOL

student/teacherinteraction

4. PROCESSquality of instruction

25%

5%

5. LEARNINGOUTCOMES

• cognitive• affective• rate of

learning

3. TEACHER CHARACTERISTICS

Fig. 2. Factors accounting for variance in learning outcome (Lahdes 1980, 19 afterBloom 1976), and each one's contribution to the common variance.

this situation is not accepted, and the aim is by means of instructionto reduce the differences between pupils' achievements. What thesupporters of mastery learning have done is to apply the explicatorymodel outlined above, in order to distinguish the stable variables fromthose which are alterable. Once the latter have been identified, effortscan be made to alter them, with a view to reducing the differences inlearning outcome. The 1980 'MESA Seminar' Report, chaired byBloom, is interesting in this respect.

Let us now turn to considering some of the crucial problems whichoccur on the alterable variables.

1. In a sense, it is reassuring that the classroom and school variablesaccount for no more than 5% of the variance in learning outcome:in other words, in teaching, mind is incomparably more important thanmatter. In practical educational politics, interest groups (e.g. teachers'associations) frequently demand improvement in these variables, suchas the size of classes, school buildings, etc. Many reforms of this typerequire heavy investment, however. On the other hand flexible subjecttimetabling, such as in now being introduced in the junior high schoolstage of the Finnish comprehensive school, also belongs to this category.


2. Bloom does not assign much weight to the teacher's own personality,but rather to his or her performance. The view of the present author,however, is that at the elementary stage, at least, teacher personalityplays a larger role than that indicated by Bloom's five per cent. It ispossible that Bloom's view is partly explicable by the fact that the teachercharacteristics he has studied are mainly stable variables.

3. There is extensive research available on the correlation betweenthe home environment and learning outcome, which is high (r = 65.-.75).The home factors with the least powerful impact are the 'structure'features (socio-economic status: parent education, occupation, income),and the greatest impact is exercized by 'process' factors (the develop-ment of mother tongue, the aspirations of the parents for their children,provision of help in learning etc); and whereas the former are stablevariables, the latter are alterable, at least in part. Even the attitudes ofthe home are susceptible to alteration (Bloom 1980). The home environ-ment creates the basis for the pupil's cognitive and affective entrycharacteristics, together with 'mediating variables', such as the child'sverbal ability and work habits, the significance of which is very greatfor the child's learning aptitude.

If it is desired to improve the outcome of school learning, then it isup to the school and the community to attempt to bring about improve-ments in the home environment, at the earliest stage possible. In Finnishresearch (Soininen 1980), the differences found between learningachievement between schools are probably largely to be explained byhome environment factors, despite the fact that the correlation betweenhome environment and learning outcome appears to be lower in Finlandthan in Bloom's diagram, due to a low level of variance in structure andattitude variables.

4. The correlation between learning outcome and cognitive entrybehaviours is r = 65.-.75, and that with affective entry characteristicsr=.33, while the correlation between these two variables is r=.20-.40.If cognitive entry behaviours (CEBs) are divided into three levels, thefollowing correlations are obtained: (a) generalizable CEBs (IQ, achieve-ment measures) r=.55; (b) quasi-generalizable CEBs (reading com-prehension, mathematical ability, etc.) r=.7O; and (c) specific CEBsr=.80 (Froemel & Leyton 1980). The generalizable CEBs are insus-ceptible to influence by the school, but some change can be achieved inquasi-generalizable CEBs through intensive tutoring and clinical remedialinstruction. Specific CEBs, however, correspond to the specific learningprerequisite for a particular learning task or school task, and represent

104 ERKKI LAHDES

measures of previous achievement in a particular subject matter area;this level, accordingly, is open to influence by the school curriculumand by the instruction given. With rising achievement on this level,moreover, the opportunities for influencing the quasi-generalizablecognitive entry behaviours also improve.

The results of intelligence and ability testing may also help to explainlearning outcome, but in mastery learning ideology these are seen asreflecting stable characteristics of the pupils and therefore as being ofno use to the teacher.

Similar findings emerge from Finnish mastery learning experimentalprojects; in deploying mastery learning strategies, the specific behavioursform the level of operation. A teacher who has received normal teachertraining and who engages in remedial instruction is dealing preciselywith specific cognitive behaviours; in order to influence the quasi-generalizable behaviours, it is necessary to resort to special educationand to teaching staff qualified in this field, and a considerable expansionin such instruction was initiated in Finland during the 1970s to counterreading, writing, and speech deficiencies.

5. On the quality of instruction, mastery learning strategies do notlay down any precise norms. Cues, reinforcement, participation, andfeedback/correctives, are the distinctive features of ML strategies.It has also been emphasized that 'Time-on-Task', i.e. the time activelydevoted by a pupil to solving a given assignment, should be maximized.Bloom (1980,14) also stresses that teachers tend to concentrate theirattention on students in the top third of a class, while those in the bottomthird receive the least attention and support, and this statement isconfirmed by the findings of numerous interaction studies (cf. the'Pygmalion Effect'; e.g. Brophy & Good 1974). The quality of instruc-tion is therefore to a large extent an alterable variable.

Within the mastery learning school of thought, no overall didactictheory of instruction has been developed; instead, sensible guidelinesfor instruction are offered, and adaptability to specific situations isstressed. Lahdes (1980) analyzes mastery learning strategies used, interms of the theoretical divisions formulated by Nuthall and Snook(1973), and concludes that they tend to resemble behaviour controlrather than discovery learning, and this is supported by the observationthat reliance is placed more often on behaviouristic than on cognitivepsychology. Mastery learning has not developed any theory of its ownconcerning learning.

In psychological terms, all of this is liable to stamp masterly learning


strategies as superficial; teacher and student may succeed, but areultimately ignorant of the reasons for this. Certain reservations are calledfor, however, in drawing such conclusions.

Firstly, in order to formulate a didactic theory, it is necessary toincorporate psychological theory; therefore the didactic theory becomesnormative. In this context, however, it is pointless to emphasize thedifferences between behaviourist and cognitive psychology, since bothof them are needed.

Secondly, there is also support in mastery learning circles for theadoption of discovery learning theories; moreover, the ultimate objectiveis the creative, thinking learner, capable of problem-solving (Anderson1979; Bloom 1981,193 ff.).

Thirdly, there are interesting links between mastery learning andcognitive psychology, the central objective of which is to examine thecognitive processes in terms of a single frame of reference. Bloom'stheory, just like those of Ausubel & Robison (1969) and Novak (1977),stresses the importance of what has been learnt previously in subsequentlearning. Mastery learning has also begun to pay special attention tothe 'locus of control' (Froh & Guida 1980), an important concept incognitive psychology (see Stipek & Wise 1981). Mastery learning alwaysattempts to clarify the factual content of and connections within thematerial for study. In cognitive psychology, the successful learner isseen as being able to evaluate the arbitrariness of factual content, andspontaneously to activate knowledge which may render the informationmore meaningful (cf. Bransford et al. 1981), while Nicholls (1979) con-siders that criterion-referenced testing and mastery learning appear toencourage optimum motivation.

It thus emerges that there is more in common between mastery learningand cognitive psychology, especially with reference to helping the'slower' students who face difficulties in learning, than would at firstsight appear. Similar findings are reported by a Finnish research team(Salonen, Olkinuora & Lehtinen 1982), who adopt the cognitive-psychology approach to the interactive formation of learning difficulties.If the links continue to develop between mastery learning and cognitivepsychology (the didactic applications of which have so far been relativelyweak), mastery learning will gain in theoretical depth with reference bothto teaching and to learning. Its theory of learning, in particular, has sofar been inadequate. In practice, however, the limitations of ordinaryteachers in terms of learning theory will impose limitations on itsapplication, and here it will become necessary to rely on special educa-tion teachers and school psychologists.

106 ERKKI LAHDES

REFERENCES

Anderson, L.W. 1973. Time and School Learning. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,Department of Education, University of Chicago.

Anderson, L.W. 1979. Adaptive education. Educational Leadership 37, 140-143.Ausubel, D.P. & Robinson, F.G. 1969. School Learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart

& Winston.Barone, T.E. 1978. Reading, writing, and mastery learning: are they compatible?

Educational Leadership 36, 187-191.Block, J.H. (ed.) 1971. Mastery Learning: Theory and Practices. New York: Holt,

Rinehart & Winston.Block, J.H. 1977. Individualized instruction: a mastery learning perspective.

Educational Leadership 34, 337-341.Block, J.H. 1979. Mastery learning: the current state of the craft. Educational

Leadership 37, 114-117.Bloom, B.S. 1968. Learning for mastery. Evaluation Comment 1, UCLA-CSEIP.Bloom, B.S. 1971. Individual differences in school achievement: a vanishing point.

Education at Chicago. Winter 1971, 4-14.Bloom, B.S. 1976. Human Characteristics and the School Learning. New York:

McGraw-Hill Book Company.Bloom, B.S. 1978. New views of the learner: implications for instruction and

curriculum. Educational Leadership 35, 363-376.Bloom, B.S. 1980. New directions in educational research: alterable variables. In

The State of Research on Selected Alterable Variables in Education. MESAseminar, Department of Education, University of Chicago. Pp. 5-17.

Bloom, B.S. 1981. All Our Children Learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.Brandt, R. 1979. A conversation with Benjamin Bloom. An interview with R. Brandt.

Educational Leadership 37, 157-161.Bransford, J.D. Stein, B.S., Shelton, T.S. & Owings, R.A. 1981. Cognition and

adaption: the importance of learning to learn. In J. Harvey (Ed.). Cognition,Social Behavior and Environment. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence, Erlbaum. Pp.93-109.

Brophy, J.E. & Good, T.L. 1974. Teacher-Student Relationships. New York: Holt,Rinehart & Winston.

Burns, R.B. 1979. Mastery learning: does it work? Educational Leadership 37,110-113.

Carroll, J.B. 1963. A model of school learning. Teachers College Record 64,723-733.

Cronbach, L.J. 1971. Comments of mastery learning and its implications forcurriculum development. In W. Eisner (Ed.), Confronting Curriculum Reform.Boston: Little, Brown & Co.

Daloz, L.A. 1971. Now they're competent ... So what? Educational Technology 18,22-26.

Dolly, J.R. & Meredith, J.H. 1977. The use of mastery learning as a classroommanagement model. Educational Technology 17, 26-29.

Encyclopedia of educational evaluation. 1977. 5.pr. San Francisco: Jossey-BassPublisher.

Froemel, J. & Leyton, F. 1980. The effect of cognitive entry behaviors on schoolachievement. In The State of Research on Selected Alterable Variables in


Education. MESA seminar, Department of Education University of Chicago.Pp. 41-51.

Froh, R. & Guida, F. 1980. Affective outcomes of education. In The State of Researchon Selected Alterable Variables in Education. MESA seminar, Departmentof Education University Chicago. Pp. 92-108.

Glaser, R. 1972. Individuals and learning: the new aptitudes. Educational Researcher1, 5-15.

Horton, L. 1979. Mastery learning: sound in theory, but ... Educational Leader-ship 37, 154-156.

Hyman, J.S.-Cohen, S.A. 1979. Learning for mastery: ten conclusions after 15 yearsand 3,000 schools. Educational Leadership 37, 104-119.

Ingenkamp, F.-D., 1979. Zielerreichendes Lernen — Mastery Learning. Ravensburg:Otto Maier Verlag.

Lahdes, E. 1980. Tavoiteoppiminen 1970-luvun jälkipuoliskolla. Turun yliopistonkasvatustieteiden laitoksen julkaisusarja A: 74.

Nicholls, J.G. 1979. Quality and equality in intellectual development. AmericanPsychologist 34, No. 11, 1071-1084.

Novak, J. 1977. A Theory of Education. Ithaca-London: Cornell University.Nuthall, G. & Snook, I. 1973. Contemporary Models of Teaching. In R. M. Trawers

(ed.) Second Handbook of Research on Teaching. Chicago: Rand, McNally& Cny.

Ryan, D.W.-Schmidt, M. 1979. Mastery Learning: Theory, Research and Imple-mentation. Toronto: Ontario Dept. of Education.

Salonen, P., Olkinuora, E. & Lehtinen, E. 1982. Oppimisvaikeuksien interaktiivinenmuodostuminen ja kasautuminen. (Interactive process in the formation oflearning difficulties.) Report of the Institute of Education. University ofTurku A:86.

Soininen, M. 1981. Tavoiteoppimismallin sovellus peruskoulun 1. ja 2. luokanmatematiikkaan ja äidinkieleen. (An application of the mastery learning modelto mathematics and mother tongue in the first and second grades of theFinnish comprehensive school). Report of the Institute of Education, Uni-versity of Turku B:8.

Stipek, D.J. & Weisz, J.R. 1981. Perceived personal control and academic achieve-ment. Review of Educational Research 51, 101-137.

innovation mastery learning in theory and in practical...2020/09/02 · mastery learning in theory...

Documents