research paper(whole paper)

8/13/2019 Research Paper(Whole Paper)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/research-paperwhole-paper 1/62

1

Introduction

Language teaching approaches and methods are so many. Each of which has a specific

view on how languages are learnt. When talking about language teaching, four main criteria

should be taken into account: the theoretical linguist, applied linguist, the teacher and the

learner. The theoretical linguist is the person who comes up with approaches and hypotheses

about language. The applied linguist, the middle man who bridges the gap between the

theoretical linguist and the classroom teacher, takes these approaches and tries to facilitate

them and to make them easy for the teacher so as to implement them in the classroom. The

teacher, in turn, uses his own techniques so as to implement these methods of the appliedlinguist to explain the lesson to the students. According to Anthony (1963), these terms are in

a hierarchical order in which an approach precedes a method and the latter precedes a

technique. This research paper, therefore, examines, in detailed, some traditional methods vs.

modern ones so as to see the main similarities and differences between the two.

Although different agents contribute in the learning process, including the theoretical

linguist, the applied linguist and the teacher, besides other factor, there are lots of reasons that

influence language learning both positively and negatively. Chief among these is the learning

style of the learners. The performance of students varies considerably from one learner to

another, although this does not mean that each student has a stagnant fixed learning style. In

this circumstance of different learning styles, thus, the teacher is required to recognise the

students‟ learning styles and apply different techniques of teaching that go with the learning

styles of the learners so as to engage them actively in the learning process. Besides,

personalities of learners differ tremendously; there are some introvert learners who are shy to

get in contact with other people, participate in the activities of classroom, and incapable toshare their ideas and feeling with their classmates and teachers. However, it is widely

acknowledged that extrovert students overcome shyness and participate actively and

cooperatively in the learning process. Motivation is also another important factor that affects

learning either positively or negatively. We can distinguish between internal and external

motivation: the first is basically influenced by age, gender and attitude towards learning. The

second may be unconstructive criticism and negative feedback by the teacher, rewards,

confidence the teacher creates. Punishing a student, for instance, for not answering would

minimise his motivation. Thus, group based instruction and individualised instruction are the



2

best ways to stimulate learners to do well and motivate them through planning activities and

applying teaching methods which take into account all the learning styles and all backgrounds

of learners.

We chose to write about this topic for two main reasons. First, we are interested muchmore to know about the field of applied linguistics, for it is interested in pedagogy. Since the

majority of us expect themselves to become future teachers, the only way, we thought, to have

an idea about applied linguistics is to search and read as much as possible about this special

field. In addition, developing a monograph about such topic would undoubtedly enrich our

memory. This monograph introduces the main factors of teaching: the teacher, the learner,

and the classroom situation. Knowing, therefore, the role of each one is of great importance

for any graduate student interested in the teaching career. Second, since our prospect is to

carry out our studies, applied linguistics may be one of those branches for which we will opt

for. As a result, having developed a well-detailed research about teaching would be a starting

point for a successful career in master studies. These two main important reasons have indeed

encouraged us to develop a research paper entitled “Combating Individual differences using

Mastery Learning Methodology” under the supervision of Mrs. Fatima Amahzoune.

In the point of departure of this research paper, we observed that differences in

achievement and performance seem to prevail mainly among undergraduate students and we presume that this problem can be attributed to many reasons: individuals‟ different

background and low motivation stand as an obstacle that impedes the achievements of the

learners during high school. The path through which students pass to university is not

designed to allow all students to equally achieve mastery on what they have learned. As these

individual differences in the preceding levels before university prevail, the inevitable result is

poor competence. Traditional methods established a sort of competition among students who

try to get good grades, only few students could attain good grades in comparison to their

classmates, and students usually learn a particular subject on the basis of their natural inherent

features, such as aptitude and intelligence.

Striving to look for a suitable solution to these problems, exemplified in students‟

difficulty to become proficient , which is probably due to their different backgrounds, aptitude

and motivation, we have gone over Mastery Learning theory, and we assume that this theory

can provide teachers with strategies that would probably melt down the individual different

backgrounds that prevail in the Moroccan public schools and motivate students to learn

cooperatively, and we will also attempt to inquire about the strategies teachers use to



3

overcome the issue of individual differences, proposing that Mastery Learning can assist in

minimizing such problems in Moroccan public schools.

This research paper is divided into two major parts. The first part is principally

theoretical. Chapter one introduces some of the prominent theories of second language

acquisition, and it specifically defines two schools which include behaviourism and

Mentalism. It also makes a short summary of Stephen‟ Krashen‟s theory of second language

acquisition, tracing, at the end of this chapter, the fundamental differences between

acquisition and learning. Whereas chapter two gives an overview about some traditional

methods exemplified in Grammar Translation Method, Direct Method, Audio-Lingual

Method, and Communicative Language Teaching, chapter three ,by contrast, talks about

Mastery Learning Theory and Constructivist Theory as examples of modern methods.



4



5

I. Second Language Acquisition theories1. Behaviourism

The Behaviorist Theory is set on the findings of the Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov

who accidently discovered the phenomenon of classical conditioning. This took place whenPavlov was working with dogs in his laboratories and his attention was caught by the way the

dogs salivate when they were tasting food. What was more interesting is that dogs drool even

when they were not presented with food, but when the assistant of the laboratory, the person

who provides food, appears. Pavlov pursued this observation systematically by, for instance

ringing the bell prior to the arrival of the dogs‟ food. After a series of trials, the dogs would

begin to salivate when they hear the bell ring even though the food is not presented to them.

Another experiment was conducted by Watson and Rayner (1920) on an orphan called Little

Albert. They presented the child with little white rat; if the child went to touch or to strike the

rat, a very loud noise would be made behind his head. It appeared finally that Little Albert

became afraid of the sights of this rat. Afterward, B. F Skinner introduced what is called

operant conditioning, which is different from classical conditioning. Operant conditioning is

based on negative and positive reinforcement; it is associated with reaction to improve or to

degrade the response. For instance, if the student does well in class, the teacher praises him

saying “good, well done”. This is called positive reinforcement. However, if the student

makes mistakes or does not do his homework, the teacher gives him extra-homework as a

positive punishment.

In short, behaviorists suggest that all our behaviors are based on conditioning, our

surroundings are the determinants of our behavior, the external is emphasized and the mind is

excluded, and that people are born with a „tabula rasa‟; that is, our mind is a blank slate ready

to absorb from the environment that surrounds us.

Types of Reinforcement and Punishment:

Reinforcement is a result that improves the likelihood that a behavior will occur; in

fact, it strengthens a behavior. As for punishment, it is a result of a consequence that degrades

the likelihood a behavior will occur; it weakens a behavior. According to the following

figures, there are two forms of reinforcement and punishment:



6

Figure: 1

Figure: 2

Simply put, when something is added or presented, the learning process is called

positive, and when something is removed or taken away, the learning process is called

negative.

2. Mentalism

The inadequacies of behaviourism led other researchers, chiefly Chomsky, to look for

an alternative theory which takes into account the human specificity and nature. Thus,

Chomsky deserted „nurture‟; that is, he challenged the idea that the environmental factors are

the determiner of our behaviours, including language. He, however, advocated the important

Reinforcement

Positive

ReinforcementBoth types of reinforcements are

used to increase the liklihood that

a preceding behaviour will be

repeated.

Negative

Reinforcement

Punishment

Positive

Punishment

Both types of punishement are

used to decrease the liklihood

that a preceding behaviour will

be repeated.

Negative

Punishment



7

role of „nature‟. Human mind is naturally equipped with innate properties. In his book , titled

Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, Chomsky argues that children acquire their first language

quickly despite the abstract nature of the rules that govern language as a result of an inborn

capacity of language. This is what Chomsky labelled as Language Acquisition Device, which

is an inherent feature of any human being born to particular society. The human mind,

therefore, is not a „tabula rasa‟ in which to write and instil a set of behaviours. What counts

for the first language acquisition is the LAD.

Behaviourism as a theory of language acquisition, which is founded upon the

structuralist theory of language, has been criticized heavily. One of its major critics is Noam

Chomsky; he started to shift his interest towards the function of the human mind instead of

focusing on the external factors that influence the process of acquiring a language. At that

time, there was a shift from structural linguistics which was basically contingent upon the

description of the external structure of language towards generative linguistics pioneered by

Noam Chomsky. Chomsky advocates that human language‟s main feature is creativity; he

emphasises that language is a rule-governed system and that out of a limited number of

sentences, we can formulate an infinite number of sentences. In other words, when children

acquire their first language, they do not produce a body of sentences as a result of storing a set

of habits; instead, they create new sentences which they have never learned or heard before.

Children do not acquire language by imitation, simply, as Chomsky argues, because they are

able to produce sentences such as John goed and she speaked . That is, children are not only

imitating what they receive from their surroundings, but they apply the rules to new

situations. This, in fact, means that there is something functioning in their brain.

Mentalism came as a reaction to behaviourism; it advocated the following:

Language is mostly of an innate nature, and therefore is not a habit structure.

Language learning and language development are biological processes which are not a

result of social learning.

Language acquisition is not achieved through the process of responses to stimuli, and

it is not a matter of habit formation.

Stimulus response is a weak theory and has nothing to do with language acquisition

since children use their cognitive capacity to discover the structure of the language

spoken around him.



8

Behaviourism is mainly concerned with analysing animal behaviour in laboratories;

however, human behaviour is more complex than animal behaviour.

According to Chomsky, the LAD is human-specific because only human being use

language, while other animals do not. Since all human beings learn language

successfully, they have to possess an internal property for language learning which

other animals do not have.

Children make generalisations. They apply rules by analogising because linguistic

behaviour involves innovation and creativity. Children formulate new sentences and

patterns on the basis of abstract and intricate rules. (Dr. Demirsen, Hacette, 1989)

In summary, it seems that Behaviourism and Mentalism are mutually exclusive, and

the debate between the two concerning whether language acquisition is a matter of an innate

capacity or a learned behaviour has basically focused on vilification of each other‟s

assumptions. However, researchers in the field of applied linguistics and language teaching

advocated a different view. They argued that both theories, although they seemingly exclude

each other, complement each other and each theory admits what the other proposes

unintentionally. Mohamed Q. Al-Shormani (2009) quoted Chomsky (1995, p: 13), the pioneer

of Mentalism, stating that „every theory of learning that is worth considering incorporates an

innateness hypothesis‟. He also quoted Cook (1983) who believes that even the Behaviourismattributes to the child an ability to form associations of stimulus and response.

3. Krashen’s Theory of Second Langauge Acquisition

Second language acquisition researchers have always been concerned with the order in

which the second language is acquired (learned). In first language acquisition, the child, the

behaviourists assumed, is born as a blank slate which is ready to absorb the input introduced

by the environment; generative theory, led by Chomsky, maintains that the child is equipped

with Language Acquisition Device. Second language learners have already internalised a

system of language, and hence theories of second language acquisition are basically

concerned with finding an appropriate theory to produce a native-like proficiency in second or

foreign languages, adopting the same procedures of first language acquisition. In this section,

the focus will be laid on an innatist model pioneered by Stephen Krashen. The latter‟s theory

of second language acquisition is made up of a set of interrelated hypotheses which are briefly

summed up as follows:



9

The Acquisition Learning Hypothesis

Stephen Krashen argues that there two ways by which adults acquire the second

language: the acquisition system and the acquired system. The former is a result of a

subconscious pr ocess quite similar to that of child‟s first language acquisition. This type

requires that the learner involve in a natural interaction in the target language and focus on the

communicative act rather than the form of his utterance. The latter is a result of formal

instruction; that is, it takes place in a formal setting such as class, it comprises a conscious

procedure and it always results in conscious knowledge about the target language.

According to Krashen, the best way to learn a second language is through natural

interaction. Thus, the teacher should create situations where the target language is used to

help students achieve fluency and acquire language instead of learning about language. In this

regard, H. Douglas Brown quoted Krashen; he maintains that “fluency in second language

performance is due to what we have acquired, not what we have learned. (H. Douglass

Brown, p: 278)

The monitor Hypothesis

The monitor hypothesis explains the relationship between acquisition and learning and

traces the influence of the latter on the former. Monitoring takes place in learning, not in

acquisition. Acquisition initiates the utterance and encourages the learners to speak

spontaneously, without correction mistakes, unlike the learning system in which the learner

monitors his utterance, corrects his mistakes, plans and the final result is conscious

knowledge. Krashen maintains that the role of the monitor should be minor. He also

distinguishes those who overuse monitor, those who preferred not to use their knowledge

(under-users) and those who use it appropriately, optimal users.

The Natural Order Hypothesis

Krashen main argument regarding this hypothesis is that we acquire language in a

predictable order; that is, we learn language gradually, starting from simple structures to more

complex ones. He asserts that certain grammatical structures are easier than other and that the

teacher can never control the sequence of acquiring these grammatical structures.



10

The Input Hypothesis

The Input hypothesis is devised by Stephen Krashen to explain the way in which

second language acquisition takes places; it is, thus, concerned with second language

„acquisition‟ rather than language „learning‟. This theory proposes that the input that the

teacher introduces to the learner be in „natural order‟. That is, the learner receives a

comprehensible input, the material he can understand, and later receives an input which is one

step beyond his current linguistic competence and knowledge so that he can improve and

progress his competences and learn new linguist input. “If an acquirer is at stage or level i, the

input he or she understands should contain i+ 1” (Krashen1981). Briefly put, the input should

create some kind of challenge to the learner so that he can make efforts to learn new material

that should not go too far beyond his current knowledge in the subject.

Affective Filter Hypothesis

The Affective Filter Hypothesis represents Krashen concept that different variables

interfere to facilitate the process of second language acquisition. These include: anxiety, self-

confidence and motivation. Krashen main argument is that “the best acquisition will occur in

environments where anxiety is low and defensiveness is absent, or, in Krashen terms, where

„the affective filter‟ is low.”(Douglass Brown, p: 281) In other words, self -confident and

motivated students will progress well in acquiring a second language while anxious,

unmotivated and unconfident students will encounter difficulties in acquiring a second

language, since their characteristics, especially mental, create a mental block that does not

allow the Comprehensible Input to function properly fro acquisition.

In brief, Stephen Krashen‟s theory of acquisition is established around the idea that

second language acquisition can trace the same steps of mother tongue acquisition. In this

sense, krashen, in his first two hypotheses, argues that distinction be made between the

learning system and the acquisition system, advocating the latter as an appropriate system in

which the teacher creates situations where the target language is used freely without

correction of mistakes and without monitoring of the learners utterances, and which results in

fluency. Further, Krashen recommends that the input follow a natural order and that the

material provided the learner fit his current level and competence, without dismissing and

essential part in the process of acquisition, the Affective filter. Motivation, self-esteem and

anxiety, Krashen argues, play a facilitative role in acquisition.



12

II. Traditional Methods1) Grammar Translation Method

Background

Grammar Translation Method (GTM) refers to an approach to language teaching,

appeared in Germany and dominated European and foreign language teaching from 1840s to

the 1940s; it was, in fact, known as the Prussian or the Classical Method since it was first

used in the teaching of the classical languages, Latin and Greek. Yet, before going over the

most important characteristics of this method, let us first of all define its key words: grammar

and translation.

Penny (2000) defines the word grammar as “a set of rules that define how words (or

parts of words) are combined or changed to form acceptable units of meaning with a

language”. Therefore, guaranteeing the accuracy of the sentences mainly depends on the

learner‟s mastery of grammar, and it is an essential and important part of language. The

Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English defines grammar as “the study of use of the

rules by which words change their forms and are combined into sentences.” In fact, it has

multi-meanings. Batstone (1994) says, “Grammar is multi-dimensional”. Without grammar,

however, we cannot produce correct speech. For example, one may have thousands of words

but if he cannot know how to put them together, then he cannot produce good English

(Brumfit, 2000).

As for translation, it is often the communication of the meaning of a source- language

text by means of an equivalent target language text. Likewise, in his book, entitled

Translation: General and Lexical Problems, V.S. Vinogrador defines translation as “a process

(and its result) caused by social necessity of information (content) transmitting, expressed in a

written or oral text in one language by the means of an “equivalent (adequate) text in another

language.” In the same context, A.Lilova defines translation as “a specific oral or written

activity aimed at the recreation of an oral or written text (utterance) existing in one language

into a text in another language, accompanied by keeping the invariance of content, qualities of

the original and author‟s authenticity”.

Going back to the principles of grammar-translation method, one can say that GTM

was used with a view to help students read and appreciate foreign language literature. Thanks

to the study of grammar of the target language, it is argued, students would become morefamiliar with the grammar of their mother tongue; this familiarity, therefore, would help them



13

speak and write their native language better. As its name indicates and suggests, GTM focuses

much more on translation from the mother tongue into the target language or vice-versa;

hence, being able to translate each language into the other is the fundamental goal for

students. This automatically means that the ability to communicate in the target language is

not a goal of foreign language instruction since the primary skills to be developed are reading

and writing.

Before going over the most important and major roles that a student assumes in the

learning process, we should first define the term role.

What is a role?

According to Oxford Advanced Learner Dictionary (1955:1018), the word role isdefined as “an actor‟s part in a play” or a function that a person or a thing typically has or is

expected to have”.

M. Banton (1965:29) defines the word role as a set of norms and expectations applied

to the incumbents of a particular position”. In general, a role can be defined as the part that

someone plays in the performance of a social life activity.

Learner roles

The students receive instructions from their teachers in a passive way in the sense that

students in a classroom, wherein GTM takes place, do as their teacher says so that they can

learn what he knows. In the exam, for instance, students are required to reproduce what they

learnt; it is really a very traditional role. Students within a classroom of GTM should be able

to

Translate one language into the other

Show their comprehension by means of written language

Try to find the native language equivalents for all the words in L2 (word lists)

To memorize vocabulary and tenses of one set of irregular verbs.



14

The teacher role

Before highlighting the most important and major roles that a teacher assumes in the

teaching-learning process, we should first shed light on the teacher‟s personality and

characteristics.

The teacher’s personality and characteristics:

The teacher effectiveness is greatly and strongly related to his personality. For

instance, an effective teacher tends to be warm, understanding, friendly, responsible,

systematic, imaginative, enthusiastic…..Most importantly, the successful teacher must be

emotionally mature; which means that the teacher should not be scared by the student‟s

behavior towards him. David Fontana (1988:348) says, “The teachers who show themselvesquite unmoved by even the most Machiavellian strategies mounted against them soon find

these strategies losing their appeal for children, and they are able to deal quickly and

effectively with any subsequent sporadic fresh outbreak”. In this case, a highly level of self-

esteem and self confidence are two factors that help a teacher to tackle calmly and objectively

any kind of problems.

The teacher role

It is well known that GTM is a teacher-centered method in the sense that the teacher is

the authority in the classroom, his authority is exemplified in his decision whether an answer

is right or not. Additionally, he is the source of knowledge. That is, knowledge is highly

transferred from the teacher to the students. In the exam, for instance, the teacher expects his

students to reproduce what he has taught them. Finally, he is the more active and dynamic

while the learning process takes place in the classroom.

2) The Direct Method

In the mid nineteenth century, the bridges of communication among the European

nations became open; the introduction of industrialization and the development of

international trade demanded high proficiency in foreign languages. Language teachers had

already traced the deficiencies of Grammar Translation Method, particularly its inability to

develop communicative competence in the learners and its focus on accuracy rather than

fluency; thus, they felt the need for devising a new method in order to develop orally

proficient learners in foreign languages.



15

The Direct Method is a result of different teaching experiences of prominent scholars

in the mid nineteenth century and the turn of the twentieth century; chief among these are

Gouin and Sauveur who both believed in the Natural Method and advocated the idea that first

language learning process could be the best model for teaching foreign languages. They

maintained that “a foreign language could be taught without translation or the use of the

learner‟s native tongue if meaning was conveyed directly through demonstration and action.”

It seems, thus, that the direct method eliminates one of the basic principles of Grammar

Translation Method in favour of a method in which interaction and demonstration through

action and the use of the target language is the basis to convey meaning. (Richard and

Theodore, 1986)

The Direct Method is founded on the assumption that the process of second language

learning should be more similar to that of first language acquisition, a process which involves

natural communication, no translation and no explanation of the grammar rules. It emphasizes

correct pronunciation, listening and speaking and learning basic sentences instead of single

words. The advocates of the direct method aim at setting up a direct association between

words and ideas and between the learners experience and the target language; that is, the

learner gains knowledge of a language within its cultural context through making direct bond

between words and concepts. Unlike Grammar Translation Method in which the teacherintroduces concepts through translating them into the learners‟ mother tongue, the Direct

Method discards the learners‟ mother tongue, allowing the learners to think, to speak and to

write using the target language without recourse to the equivalent terms in their mother

tongue. In this regard, Diane Larsen-Freeman quotes Diller (1978); he states that “the Direct

Method receives its name from the fact that meaning is to be connected directly with the target

language, without going through the process of translating into the students' native

language.”(Diane Larsen-Freeman, 2000)

The principles of the Direct Method were basically established upon the maxims of the

first language acquisition. Practically, supporters of this method highlight the following

principles:

1. Classroom instruction was conducted exclusively in the target language.

2. Only everyday vocabulary and sentences were taught.



16

3. Oral communication skills were built up in a carefully graded progression organized

around question answer exchange between teachers and students in small, intensive

classes.

4. Grammar was taught inductively.

5. New teaching points were introduced orally.

6. Concrete vocabulary was taught through demonstration, objects and pictures; abstract

vocabulary was taught by association of ideas.

7. Both speech and listening comprehension were taught.

8. Correct pronunciation and grammar were emphasized.( J. C. Richards and Theodore,

1997 p: 9, 10)

Building on Diane Larsen free-man, in his Techniques and Principles in Language

Teaching, we could reconsider some of the above fundamental principles of the Direct

Method:

Teachers who adopt the Direct Method aim at teaching students how to communicate

in the target language. To do this successfully, students should learn to think in the

target language.

The teacher directs activities in the classroom; students are more active; and there is

interaction between the teacher and his students and between students themselves.

The teacher demonstrates the meaning of the newly introduced vocabulary by using

realia, pictures and pantomime. The syllabus in the Direct Method is based on real life

situations so as to provide students with opportunity to use the target language

extensively. For instance, teachers may choose topics that are related to banking,

chopping, geography, money…

Language is initially spoken not written. Students, thus, study common everyday

speech in the target language. Through learning the target language, students also

become knowledgeable about the culture of the people who speak it.

The direct method works on four basic skills, including reading and writing and

speaking and listening. It emphasizes vocabulary over grammar; however, it

underlines oral communication as its basic aim.

The students‟ mother tongue is done away with.

The teacher has the students correct their errors through asking tag questions and

providing both the students incorrect sentence and correct alternative, for example. ( J.C. Richards and Theodore, 1997 p: 9)



17

Despite its popularity as the first method to take the initiative to develop oral

proficiency in the learners and despite its effectiveness in private schools which employ

native speaking teachers, and in which the paying clients were very motivated to hone their

oral skills, the Direct Method encountered harsh criticism.

First, it required teachers who were native speakers or who had native

like fluency in the foreign language. It was largely dependent on the

teacher's skill, rather than on a text book, and not all teachers were

proficient enough in the foreign language to adhere to the principles of

the method. (J. C. Richards and Theodore, 1997)

It seems, thus, that the Direct Method‟s major disadvantages is that it requires native teachers,

and it also demands paying clients; that is, the Direct Method can be effective only incommercial and private sector instead of public schools.

3) The Audiolingual Method

Like the Direct method, the Audio-lingual Method is an oral-based approach to

language learning; it can be defined as a “technique of foreign-language instruction that

emphasizes audio-lingual skills over reading and writing and is characterized by extensive use

of pattern practice.”(Dictionary.com) t underlines the importance of teaching speaking and

listening skills over reading and writing skills, and it is mainly based on drills, memorization

and dialogue in the teaching of foreign languages. According to this method, the mother

tongue of the learner should not intervene in foreign language learning.

In search for the origins of the Audio-lingual Method, we came across different

historical circumstances that converged to set up the foundations of a new method called

Audio-lingual Method. Chief among these circumstances are stated by Jack C. Richards and

Theodore S. Rodgers in their book, Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (1986 );the reported that the United States entry into World War II had a significant influence on

language teaching in America and that the U.S needed personnel who were fluent in foreign

languages, the emergence of structural linguistics had contributed much in the shaping of

Audio-lingual Method, and finally behaviorism had also deeply contributed in the

development of the so called Army method.

The political circumstances of the 1940‟s, especially the involvement of the U.S in the

Second World War II, its contact with foreign countries and colonies and its emergence as a



18

major power at that time, resulted in a necessity to set up a special training program to

provide a qualified personnel in foreign languages. Thus, the U.S government recommended

that American universities set up a foreign language training program for its military. The

Army Specialized Training Program (ASTP) was found, therefore. This program‟s major

objective was to train students “to attain conversational proficiency in a variety of foreign

languages.”(Richard and Theodore, 1997) Besides, the American linguist Leonard Bloomfield

had found a program as a part of his research to make linguists and anthropologists master

American Indian languages and other foreign languages they were studying.” Since these

languages were spoken, and since they had no textbook, Bloomfield and his friends used a

method called „the informant method‟ which used native speakers of the language to be

taught; these native informants provided vocabulary, phrases and sentences for imitation and

repetition, and the linguist served the role of an observer--he investigates how language is

structured through extracting the rules that govern the system of a given language. This

method, hence, was based on an exchange in which the “students and the linguist take part in

a guided conversation with the informant, and together they gradually learned how to speak

the language, as well as to understand much of its basic grammar.”(Richard and Theodore,

1997, p: 45) Jack C. Richards and Theodore S. Rodgers state that such courses are basically

build on drilling and leaning for long hours, noting that this method had generated astonishing

results, especial because of motivated and excellent students. They affirm that

students in such courses studied ten hours a day, six days a week. There

were generally fifteen hours of drill with native speakers and twenty to

thirty hours of private study spread over two to three six-week sessions.

This was the system adopted by the army, and in small classes of

mature and highly motivated students, excellent results were often

achieved.( Richard and Theodore, 1997,p: 45)

Foreign language methodology was also triggered by the Russian initiative to launch its first

satellite. The United States, therefore, felt the need for more extensive efforts to expand

foreign language teaching so that Americans would not be left behind technologically, mainly

because other countries were making significant steps and advances in the field of technology.

Besides the political factors that led to the surfacing of the Audio-lingual Method,

structural linguistics stands as one of its major underpinnings. Linguists such as Leonard

Bloomfield and Fries during the 1930‟s and 1940‟s are the major representatives of structural

linguistics in the U.S. The work of American linguists, especially Bloomfield and Fries, had



19

been influential. At the early decades of the twentieth century, they were mainly interested in

documenting all the endogenous languages spoken in the United States. At Michigan

University, an English Language Institute (ELI) was established to train teachers of English as

a foreign language (EFL) and English as a Second or foreign language. Charles Fries, the

director of the institute (ELI), received training in structural linguistics, and he started to

apply its principles in classes. Structural linguists view language as “a system of structurally

related elements for the expression of meaning. These elements are phonemes, morphemes,

words, structures, and sentence types.”(Richard & Theodore, 1997, p: 48) They underline the

following as the main attributes of language:

Elements in a language are produced in a rule-governed way.

Language samples could be exhaustively described at any structural level ofdescription, including phonetic, phonemic, morphological, syntactic…

Language is structural like a pyramid; that is, linguistic level is systems within

systems.

Language is speech, not writing.

Languages are different.

Teach language not about the language.

Language is a set of habits (Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching)

Language learning, according to the structuralists, entails learning the different elements of a

language and mastering the rules that join these elements, mainly phonetic, phonemic,

phonological morphological and syntactic rules. Since language is primarily spoken rather

than written, and many languages have no written form, structuralists gave much importance

to speech sounds of languages rather than its written form.

Besides the emergence of structural linguistics as an influential academic discipline

which contributed in the shaping of Audiolingualism, a new discipline in the American

universities called behavioral psychology was flourishing. Behaviorism considers human

beings as organisms which are capable to absorb an uncountable number of behaviors,

including language. Behaviorism‟s main aim is to explain how an external stimulus causes

change in individuals‟ behavior without referring to the role of the mind or any concept that is

linked to the mind. Its advocates maintain that the human mind is a “tabula rasa” and that

people are conditioned to learn from their surroundings. Language, thus, is a behavior that is

learned from the environment depending on three basic elements which include:

1. Stimulus: the input that is meant to elicit behavior.2. Response: the stimuli triggers a response



20

3. Reinforcement: if the response is appropriate, there is encouragement

(positive reinforcement) so that the behavior occurs again. If the behavior is

inappropriate, it is suppressed.

Basic Principles

The basic principles of the Audio-lingual Method can be enlisted as follows: (adapted

from Richards and Rodgers 1986:51)

Foreign language learning is basically a habit and hence good habits are formed by

giving correct responses.

Memorization and drilling minimize mistakes.

The focus is on form rather than meaning.

Learning language is based on learning structures.

Native speaker-like pronunciation is desired.

No explanation of grammar rules; grammar is taught inductively.

Focus on hearing, speaking and writing is not given much importance.

The learner‟s mother tongue is discouraged.

Analogy provides a better foundation for language learning than analysis.

Analogy involves the processes of generalization and discrimination. Explanations of

rules are therefore not given until students have practiced a pattern in a variety of

contexts and are thought to have acquired a perception of the analogies involved.

Drills can enable learners to form correct analogies. Hence the approach to the

teaching of grammar is essentially inductive rather than deductive. The meanings that the words of a language have for the native speaker can be learned

only in a linguistic and cultural context and not in isolation.

Objectives

In general terms, Audio-lingual method sets as its objective the training of the learners

to develop communicative competence in the target language. Richards and Rodgers

delineated the objective of Audiolingualism; they quoted Brooks (1964: 111) who

“distinguishes between short-range and long-range objectives of an audio-lingual program.

Short-range objectives include training in listening comprehension, accurate pronunciation,

recognition of speech symbols as graphic signs on the printed page, and ability to reproduce

these symbols in writing.”(Richard & Theodore, p: 52) It is implied from this short term

objectives that sound structures come first, familiarization of the students with vocabulary

items comes as a second step and finally meaning can be attained when students master the

sound structures and vocabulary items. Long term objectives, Brooks argues, “must be

language as the native speaker uses it .... There must be some knowledge of a second

language as it is possessed by a true bilingualist" (Brooks1964: 107).



21

In a nutshell, Audiolingualism is a result of a multitude of circumstances. The Political

status at that time and the development of new disciplines in the U.S universities, mainly

structural linguistics and behavioral psychology which stood as the groundwork of Audio-

lingual Method, presented a fertile ground for establishing a new foreign language teaching

method. This method gained popularity till the 1960. At the same time, criticisms of this

method came to the surface. It was undermined both in terms of the theory of language and

the theory of learning. Chomsky attacked structuralist theory of language and, hence, he

condemned the behaviourist theory of learning. In the 1966, Chomsky‟s proposed what he

named transformational generative grammar in which he advocated that the main properties

of language stem from inborn qualities of the human mind. He further argued that language

learning is not a matter of habit formation or stimulus response, but rather a matter of innate

capacities which Chomsky called the Language Acquisition Device. That is, every human

being is equipped with this a system of abstract rules in his mind; these rules allow him to

generate novel sentences that are never heard.

4) Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)

Background

Communicative Language Teaching came as a reaction against Situational Language

Teaching. Unlike the latter, which focuses on mastery of structures, British applied linguists

stressed the functional and communicative possible of language, and it seemed to them very

necessary to forget about approaches and methods that stressed on a mere structure and

grammar of a language and gave more emphasis to CLT, which conveys the idea that

communicative proficiency is the desired goal. The British linguist, D.A. Wilkins (1972) was

one of the pioneers of CLT. His contribution was, in fact, an analysis of the communicative

meanings that a language learner needs to figure out and express himself. He provided two

types of meanings: notional categories which are the bearers of some important concepts such

as time, sequence, quantity, location, frequency, etc, and categories of communicative

function which have to do with requests, denials, offers…later on the 1972 Wilkins‟

document was developed into a book entitled “ Notional Syllabuses” (1976). The latter had a

very significant influence on the development of CLT, sometimes known as Notional-

Functional Approach.



22

One of the main goals of CLT is the teaching of communicative competence as

opposed to grammatical competence. That is, teaching language to learners to improve their

communicative capacity with a view to know how to use language for a range of different

purposes and functions. This automatically means that in planning language courses within a

communicative approach, grammar was no longer the starting point. For Hymes, a person

who acquires communicative competence acquires both knowing what to say and how to say

it. Littlewood (1981:1) declares, “One of the most characteristic features of communicative

language teaching is that it pays systematic attention to functional as well as structural aspects

of language”. This means that CLT, for him, is an amalgam of grammatica l and functional

teaching. For others, however, it means using tasks where learners work in groups. That is to

say, two groups should at least take part in an interaction or discussion of some kind where

one party has an intention and the other party expands or reacts to the intention.

In the same context, Montaigne talked about his own experience and how he learnt

Latin only through communication; he writes,” Without methods, without a book, without

grammar or rules, without a whip and without tears, I had learned a Latin as proper as that of

my schoolmaster”. It is obviously clear that this view is an anti-structural view; it is the view

which is referred to by Hilgard and Bower (1966) as “learning by doing” or “the experience

approach”, the view which puts the communicative factors as its starting point. The linguistJohn Firth, further, goes hand in hand with this idea when he considered focusing attention on

discourse as the main subject and context for language analysis. What‟s more, he insisted that

language should be studied in terms of sociocultural perspective and the context of its use,

based on the course, on the situation, the participants and their roles, and intentions.

As far as Howatt is concerned, there are two versions of CLT: a “strong” and a “weak”

version. He says: “there is, in a sense, a strong version of the communicative approach and a

weak version. The weak version which has become more or less standard practice in the last

ten years stresses the importance of providing learners with opportunities to use their English

for communicative purposes and, characteristically, attempts to integrate such activities into a

wider program of language teaching. The strong version of communicative teaching, on the

other hand, advances the claim that language is acquired through communication, so that it is

not merely a question of activating an existing but inert knowledge of the language, but of

stimulating the development of the language system itself. If the former could be described as

„learning to use English‟, the latter entails „using English to learn it.‟(1984:279).



23

Going back to communicative competence, the main goal of CLT, Canale and Swain

(1980) identified four dimensions of communicative competence: first, grammatical

competence; it is the lexical and grammatical capacity; for Chomsky it is the linguistic

competence. Second, sociolinguistic competence which includes the understanding of the

social context and the situation where the participants communicate. Third, discourse

competence which refers to the ability to figure out and interpret messages expressed by

individuals. Finally, strategic competence which has to do with the coping strategies the

communicators employ to initiate, terminate, maintain and redirect communication.

Learner roles

It is apparently clear that the processes of communication are the main essence of

CLT. Therefore, the learner is the center since it is he who is dynamic, active and the center of

classroom situation. In this context, Breen and Candlin describe the learner‟s roles within

CLT in the following terms: “the role of learner as negotiator - between the self, the learning

process, and the object of learning-emerges from and interacts with the role of joint negotiator

within the group and within the classroom procedures and activities which the group

undertakes. The implication for the learner is that he should contribute as much as he gains,

and thereby learn in an interdependent way”. (1980:110). It is clear, thus, that one of the main

roles of the learner within CLT is to negotiate and to get involved in discussions while

performing a course. He is the core and the object of learning in the sense that he must

contribute as much as possible in developing a course. By doing so, further, the learner

becomes independent. In addition, students are expected to be more interactive with each

other rather than with the teacher; hence, errors are seemed to be accepted, since the main

goal is to learn to communicate in the target language. Also this reflects the idea that students

work in a cooperative way and process rather than depending on their individual capacities.

As a result, failed or successful communication is a joint responsibility.

Teacher roles:

There are several and various roles that a teacher assumes while doing the act of

teaching within a CLT course.



24

a) Needs Analyst

The teacher is supposed to know the learner‟s needs and interests and to respond to

them whenever he sees it inevitable. To be successful in this role, the teacher should know his

student‟s needs in learning the English language. Also, he should specify his students‟

objectives in general.

The teacher‟s responsibility in determining and responding to learners‟ language needs

may be achieved through two ways:

Informally and personally: this may be done through one to one sessions with the

students according to the students‟ learning styles and goals.

Formally: this might include the student‟s motivation for studying the language.

b) The teacher as a counselor

“Every teacher is a teacher of social skills, every teacher is an educational counselor”,

David Fontana (1981:341). Counseling is one of the most important roles of the teacher; he

helps the students cope with their personal problems and makes decisions about the course

their lives should take.

In general, the teacher-counselor should:

Encourage the students to talk about their personal problems.

Respond non- judgmentally to the student‟s problem once it is identified.

Never press the student to talk if he doesn‟t wish.

c) The teacher as a class manager

One of the most important elements that may contribute that facilitating the teaching-

learning process is classroom management. The teacher needs first of all to think carefully of

his own behavior and then of the various activities he will be using in his class. There are

many ways to manage the class; some of them are

Seating arrangements: this point is of great importance in the sense that it can determine the

students‟ attitudes towards each other and towards their teacher. It can also show us how

students interact with each other, and the kinds of activities they can perform

Giving instructions: the teacher should give clear and simple instructions to make it easy for

students to carry out their studies and tasks.



25

Setting up-pair and group work: pair or group work gives some kind of freedom to

students. It allows them to practice language as much as possible without being under the

pressure of the teacher.

Using students’ names: this is of great importance, for it gives the students the feeling that

their teacher really cares about them; more importantly, it makes the students closer to their

teacher.

Kinds of classroom activities that best facilitate learning

Learners within a classroom of CLT had to practice in classroom activities that were

based on cooperative rather than individualistic approach to learning. They have to become

comfortable with listening to their peers in groundwork.

According to Littlewood (1981), there are two major activity types in Communicative

Language Teaching: functional communication activities and social interaction activities. The

former includes examples such as comparing a group of pictures and discussing similarities

and differences between them. The teacher, for instance, divides his students into A-B pairs.

He has often copied two sets of pictures. One set (for A students) contains a picture of a group

of people. The other set (for B students) contains a similar picture, but it contains a number of

slight differences from A-picture. Students then are asked to strive to discover what is

there and what is not there; what is mentioned and not mentioned. As for social interaction

activities, they include conversation and discussion sessions such as dialogues, role plays,

skits, improvisations, and debates.

More importantly, the main activity types that were one of the outcomes of CLT are

those of accuracy versus fluency. Fluency is spontaneous and natural language use occurring

when a speaker engages in meaningful interaction; one of the goals of CLT is to develop

fluency in language use. As to accuracy, it focuses on creating correct examples of language

use. The main differences between the two activities are well-situated in the following table:

Activities Focusing on Fluency Activities Focusing on Accuracy

Reflect natural use of language.

Focus on achieving communication

meaningful use of language

Seek to link language use to context.

Reflect classroom use of language.

Focus on the formation of correct

examples of language.

Practice language out of context.



26

Example: students, for example, are

divided into drivers, witnesses, and the

police at a collision between two cars. Each

group has to adopt specified roles and

personalities. The language used is

completely improvised by the students as

much as they can.

-do not require meaningful

communication.

Example: the teacher divides his students

into 3 to 4 groups and asks them to

complete an exercise on grammatical item,

such as choosing between the present

perfect and the present tense. Students, in

turn, work together to decide which

grammatical form is correct; groups take

turns reading out their answers.

NOTE: both activities give great emphasis on pair and group work.

It is argued that through these kind of activities learners will obtain several advantages:

Students will have the opportunity to learn from each other through listening to

the language spoken by the other group.

These activities offer them the opportunity to produce as much language as

possible.

Their motivational level is likely to increase.

They will have the chance to develop fluency.

III. Modern MethodsA. Constructivism

Constructivism is one of the oldest approaches in education in the sense that it is

rooted from philosophy just like other disciplines such as sociology, ethnography and

cognitive psychology. Constructivism, furthermore, is a part of cognitive revolution, an

intellectual movement in the 1950s that began with what is known collectively as the

cognitive sciences, which is in turn began to be used to take advantage of an analysis of

scientific revolution. According to Resnik (1989), “constructivism is a theory of learning or

meaning making”. That is to say, learners individually create their own new understandings

with the purpose of building an interaction between what they already know and believe and

ideas and knowledge with which they come into contact. This view, in fact, was supported by

Henson who once said, “Constructivism is a theory of how learning occurs”. It is apparently

clear that the term „learning‟ is a key element of constructivism; and since it is so, learners



27

will be more or less very interested enough to seek their own understandings and insights. The

meaning, additionally, will be sought through the questioning of the learners‟ own knowledge

and new discoveries. In this context, Bransford et al. says, “wisdom cannot be told”.

Likewise, Borich and Tombari (1997) define constructivism as “an approach to learning in

which learners are provided the opportunity to construct their own sense of what is being

learned by building internal connection or relationship among the ideas and facts being

taught.” As it is illustrated in the quote, Borich and Tombary, following Resnick direction,

assert that learning occurs when learners actively engage their cognitive structures in schema

building experiences. From another perspective, learners strive to make sense of the world

around them by relying and focusing on their pre-existing schemas. This idea is well

supported by Eggan and Kauchak in their following definition given to constructivism:” ….a

view of learning that says learners use their experiences to actively construct understandings

that make sense to them, rather than have understanding delivered to them in already

organised form”.

On the other hand, Thompson (2000) demonstrates that constructivism is not a theory

of learning but a model of knowing, and constructivism may be used to build a theory of

learning. In this respect, Giambatista Vico once said, “One only knows something if one can

explain it” (Yager, 1999). From the same perspective, Emmanuel Kant supported G. Vico andasserted,” humans are not passive information receivers. Humans are active information

receivers, they build network of information with their previous information and they

assimilate or accommodate new knowledge with the old information in order to build their

own understanding of the new information”. (Check, 1992).

More importantly, constructivism can be divided into two: social constructivism and

cognitive constructivism.

1) social constructivism

Social constructivism is a theory that is rooted from Vygotsky‟s psychosocial theory,

which holds within its folds that knowledge, or disciplines that have been built up are socially

human constructs. In other words, knowledge that has been built by the learners is not

transferred from teacher to student but rather constructed in student‟s mind. According to

Philips (2000, p.6), there are some factors such as politics¸ ideologies, Values, religious

beliefs, and economic self-interest, etc. that determine the form of this constructed



28

knowledge. These factors, therefore, affect the ways whereby learners shape and form their

own comprehension about their surrounding world.

As its name indicates, social constructivism focuses on knowledge at the level of

community; knowledge is socially constructed, and it is more or less the collaborative

achievement of persons engaged in the practices of a community. For social constructivists, to

learn is to participate within a community. They, in fact, argue that learning would be

impossible as long as they do not access to the practices, resources and members of the

community. Lave and Wenger support this argument and said, “Engaging in practice, rather

than being its object, may well be a condition for the effectiveness of learning”. (Lave and

Wenger, 1991. p.93). Their quote conveys obviously the idea that the process of taking part in

the ongoing activities of a specific community is a key and essential element to the learning

process. Their argument is akin to Vygotsk y‟s, which postulates that students should not be

separated from their own sociocultural context.

2) Cognitive constructivism.

As opposed to the social constructivist perspective that describes the mind as a

distributed entity that goes beyond the bounds of the body into the social environment,

cognitive constructivists present the mind in terms of the individual. Cognitive constructivism based on the work of Swiss developmental psychologist J. Piaget, approaches learning and

knowing from the perspective of the individual. Bruner (1956) in Woolfolk (2004) introduces

two terms with a view to communicate the most fundamental principles of cognitive

constructivism in teaching and learning in the classroom. These two terms are “discovery

learning” and “subject structure”. The goal, indeed, was to encourage and emphasize the

concept of learning and development of thinking. According to him, understanding the

structure of a subject being studied (subject structure), learning will be memorable, useful and

more meaningful. Besides, discovery learning helps students improve their own thinking in

the sense that the teacher dispenses examples and the students make intuitive guesses about

those examples until they find out the connections between the subject‟s structures . The

concept “discovery learning” is sometimes referred to as “inductive reasoning”. That is, by

using specific examples, students strive to formulate a general principle. Von Glasersfeld

supports this idea when he said, “the way we segment the flow of our experience, and the way

we relate the pieces we have isolated, is and necessarily remains an essentially subjective

matter. Hence, when we intend to stimulate and enhance a student‟s learning, we cannot



29

afford to forget that knowledge does not exist outside a person‟s mind”. (Von Glasersfeld,

1996, p: 5).

This quote, in fact, reminds us of the epistemological theory which gives rise to a

theory of learning which suggests that knowledge cannot only be transferred from teacher to

student, but rather it must be (re-)built up by the individual. According to J. Piaget, learning

as a knowledge construction process forms two main key assumptions of the cognitive

constructivist perspective.

1.2 Learners actively construct their own knowledge.

This key assumption is an epistemological one in the sense that knowledge is an

individual creation; that is, in the process of knowledge construction, learners try actively to

build up, via critical thinking, new understandings by fitting their experiences in the world

into their existing understandings. “… and assist the individual in the processes of interpreting

the new material, based on what he or she knows already”, Alba and Hasher stated (Cf.

BHenjafield, 1992).

No notion of absolute knowledge. For that purpose, Scarf- Seatter (1997) provides the

following quote:”…. Constructivism has taught me (that) I do not need to know any science

in order to teach it. I will simply allow my students to figure things out for themselves, for I

know there is no right answer.” (Mackninnon and Scarff-Seatter 1997, p: 53).

2.2 Stages of intellectual development: Concrete to abstract

This assumption is the result of Piaget‟s theory of childhood development (see,e.g,

Gruber and Voneche, 1997) which posits that children‟s intellectual development go through

different stages, namely concrete thinking and formal/ abstract thinking.

These stages are not formally taught in schools, indeed. They are genetically inborn,

however. The former starts at around age 6, when the conceptual structures of the learners are

strongly grounded on the physical world. At around age 12, their conceptual structures

become no longer concrete but more abstract, helping them, therefore, to build up knowledge

through more abstract ways of thinking. For instance, they may use Meta knowledge

(knowledge about knowledge) or what is referred to as „metacognition‟; it is about self -

questioning, self-regulating, self-reviewing, and self- monitoring. According to Winn and

Snyder, “ metacognition consists of two basic processes occurring simultaneously which are



30

monitoring your progress as you learn, and making changes and adapting your strategies if

you perceive you are not doing so well “.(Winn, W and Snyder, D., 1998).

To conclude, both approaches hold within their folds the same assumption:

knowledge is actively constructed in the human mind. They, however, differ from each other

in terms of focus; whereas social constructivism focuses on how that knowledge has been

built up within the political, social and economic contexts, the cognitive approach focuses on

the manner whereby knowledge is created within the individual mind.

B. Mastery Learning

a) Definition of Mastery Learning

Mastery Learning can be defined as “an individualized and diagnostic approach to

teaching in which students proceed with studying and testing at their own rate to achieve a

prescribed level of instruction.”(Jack C. Richard and Richard Schmidt, 2002, p: 321) Mastery

Learning advocates argue that all students can master the material provided by the school if

they are given the time and help they need. This theory is founded on two basic components:

strong educational philosophy which provides a set of assumptions about the process of

learning and teaching and a method of instruction which involves a logical procedure in

selecting contents, teaching, determining students‟ progress, diagnosing students‟ learning

problems and finally producing competent students.

The theoretical foundations on which Mastery Learning is established are noticeably

different from what teachers once believed about the learners and learning in the earlier

decades before 1960. Benjamin Bloom, the main figure and the developer of this theory and

practice, has started his career as an educator when the notion that “there are good learners

and there are poor learners” was a predominant characteristic of individuals. To discriminate

between good learners and poor learners and to sort them out, students take a test of

intelligence, aptitude and achievement. This notion suggests that only good learners will

always be good learners, and they can cover more material, learn more complex courses, get

good results and improve better than poor learners. It is implied, thus, from this construct that

the traditional educational system attempts to classify learners into different groups, each

group learns the material that corresponds with its intelligence and aptitude. In such an

educational system, the gap in achievement between the poor learners and the good learners

grows larger every year.



31

In the second phase of Benjamin Bloom‟s experience as an educator, he focused on the

fact that all students can learn and understand complex and abstract input equally, yet some of

them will learn it faster than the others. Thus, Benjamin Bloom, in the preface of his book,

Human Characteristics and School Learning (1976), argues that he was mainly concerned

with finding “ways by which the slower learners could be given the extra time and help they

needed to attain some criterion of achievement.” That is, the slower learners would become

very similar to the faster learners in mastering the prescribed subjects although the slower

learners need to spend more time and to gain more help than the faster learners.

The early approaches of Mastery Learning were basically built upon the above belief.

Nevertheless, Benjamin Bloom, while he was working with his students, concluded, in the

preface of his book, Human Characteristics and School Learning , that “most students become

very similar with regard to learning ability, rate of learning, and motivation for further

learning —when provided with favourable learning conditions.” That is, if students are

provided with suitable learning condition, the differences in their rate of learning would

vanish. In other words, nearly all students have the capacity to learn the same amount of

material, regardless of how difficult this material is, at the same rate and with the same

motivation towards learning. This process becomes successful also only when schools do their

job well and are aware that the set up objective should be mastered.

b) Mastery Learning’ Basic assumptions

Mastery Learning is founded on the following set of beliefs:

Under appropriate instructional conditions virtually all students can and will learn

most of what they are taught.( James H. Block and Lorin W. Anderson, 1975.p:1)

The primary role of schools is to define the objective to be learned and to help all

students attain a level of mastery in these objectives.

c) The Notion of Time in Mastery Learning

John B. Carroll‟ model of learning assumes that school learning is determined by „ the

time needed and the time spent ’ . The time needed refers to the amount of time students need

to master a particular course, and it varies from one student to another since there are

differences among students. There are some students who have background knowledge about

the task to be taught and those who have weak background knowledge. Time spent is the time

the learner spends learning a certain task. It is a result of opportunity to learn and



32

perseverance. The specific measure of opportunity to learn is the time allotted; that is, the

time the teacher gives to his students to learn a particular task. Perseverance is also essential

to Mastery Learning theory; it is the amount of time the student could spend actively working

on a task. For instance, there are students who would spend an hour actively; others may

spend less than this amount of time.

Carroll proposed that time needed by students to learn the contents of the course

should be based on the following:

Aptitude: aptitude was traditionally defined as the natural ability of the student to learn a

particular task, and it usually employs intelligence tests to measure students‟ mental and

natural inclinations towards learning. Aptitude in Mastery Learning is defined as “the amount

of time the student would require to learn a given level under ideal instructional conditions.”

That is, students who are allowed the time they need, the time which corresponds with their

background, to learn and who spend adequate time in a particular task succeed in attaining the

goals set up for mastery. It also suggests that “students with high aptitude would learn quickly

while those with low aptitude would take more time to learn”. That is, aptitude in it traditional

sense is not to be taken into account since it does not take into account differences in the

students‟ background. Aptitude, thus, is the amount of time each student spends learning a

task. (Block and Lorin W. Anderson, 1975)

Ability to understand the instruction: Time needed is also determined by the student‟s

ability to understand the instruction presented by the teacher.

In summary, the time the learner needs is determined on the basis of three standards:

student‟s aptitude for the subject, the quality of instruction and his ability to understand this

instruction. In case the quality of instruction is high, the learner finds it easy to learn and

understand the subject; contrariwise, if the quality of instruction is low, the learner would

require more time. Thu, James H. Block and Lorin W. Anderson state that

“the degree of school learning of a given subject depends on the

student‟s perseverance, or his opportunity to learn, relative to his

attitude for the subject, the quality of instruction, and his ability to

understand the instruction.”(Thomas R. Guskey. 1985 , p: 11)



33

d) Criterion Evaluation vs. Normative Evaluation

Mastery Learning represents a shift from the traditional normative evaluation, setting

up a criterion-referenced evaluation. The former judges the students‟ performance in the

classroom on the basis of how well his classmates performed in the test; that is, the teacher

who uses normative evaluation makes a comparison between students, creating a kind of

competition between them, and thus, every student tries to get the best grade. Besides,

normative evaluation tells us nothing about how much progress has been made by students.

This type of evaluation keeps students very secretive as regards their knowledge which

would, if shared, help the other students to enhance their performance. This model of

examination discourages cooperation and sharing among students.

By contrast, criterion-referenced evaluation is based on sharing and cooperation

between students. It is named criterion since it is based on students‟ achievement of the stated

objectives, it is defined from the very beginning that students should master the goals set up

by the teacher, and students are provided with multiple opportunities to master the stated

objectives. Besides, in criterion evaluation, possibly ninety percent of students attain an A

grade. This type of evaluation is a basic principle of Mastery Learning since it establishes

cooperation in the class instead of classifying students on the basis of a curve in which only a

couple of students get good marks and a great proportion of them get an average or below

average.

e) Basic Stages in Implementing Mastery Learning

It is of a paramount importance to summarize the elements of Mastery Learning

instruction which follow a logical chronological order, in an attempt to link them to the

philosophical assumptions of the theory. In practice, Mastery Learning is based on the

following elements:

Defining what is to be Learnt

The initial stage in implementing Mastery Learning involves the delineation of the

objectives students should learn. Thomas R. Guskey notes that the first step in implementing

Mastery Learning “is for teachers to review their instructional materials or curriculum to

decide what content should be learned by all students and to what level .”(Thomas R.

Guskey.1985, p: 11) In other words, the learning objectives are defined by the teacherdepending on whatever curricula or textbooks are available. The teacher decides what



34

concepts and information are of relevance for students to learn, decides if these objectives are

only meant to be remembered by students, or he decides that the objectives should be, for

instance, applicable to other different situations and contexts. These objectives are usually

presented in a „table of specification’ , which is set up to outline the objectives for a unit, and

for the teacher to have a precise view of what is to be taught. The most important thing in this

first step is that both the teacher and the students focus and understand the objectives of the

course.

Teaching the Material

After the teacher has delineated the material of the unit he is to teach, and after he has

defined the amount of time he would spend in the unit, (a unit may take one class, a week, or

two weeks; it highly depends on the objectives the teacher set for it) he starts the process of

teaching by presenting his material through different techniques, including lectures,

demonstrations, discussions and all that he sees appropriate to get across the course. In this

stage, it is important that the teacher clearly state the goals for the unit and inform his students

that they are all expected to master the objectives of the unit.

First Formative Test

The material presented by the teacher will be mastered easily by a specific number of

students whose learning style, aptitude and perseverance correspond with either the

instructional material, or with the way the teacher explains. Contrariwise, other student will

encounter some difficulties to master the objectives of the unit, simply because of their

learning style and entry characteristics. The first formative test, which usually takes five to ten

minutes, is a tool used to check the progress of learning, and it is administered primarily to

identify the students who have mastered the set objectives and those who have not yet learned

them. This test is not meant to grade students; instead, it is used to inform both the teacher

and the student about the gaps in achievement and where more work is needed. It generates

feedback that is essential to identify the errors made in the process of teaching of a particular

unit, to remedy the learning difficulties students face and to correct the errors made in the

course of the initial instruction. In this concern, Thomas R. Guskey maintains that

“This type of testing is used during instruction to provide immediate

feedback to students and to teachers. The main purpose of this kind of

testing is not to place or evaluate students but rather to provide very



35

specific information on students‟ learning progress. This type of testing

is referred to as formative testing.”(Thomas R. Guskey. 1985, p: 34)

Generating a feedback is, therefore, useful for both the teacher and the students. As for

students, feedback „“helps them identify what they have learned well or mastered and what

they need to spend more time learning”. It also helps them to “tell if their focus in studying is

what their teacher wants.”‟ (Thomas R. Guskey. 1985, p: 6O) As for the teacher, formative

testing introduces two important clues. First, he knows which student is doing well and

which one is still in need for more help, and he also knows exactly the problems students

encounter. Second, the formative test helps the teacher identify whether the quality of

instruction is effective or not.

Providing the Learning Alternatives (Correctives and Enrichment)

Mastery Learning advocates take it for granted that almost in all cases, there will

always be some students who have difficulties in mastering a particular course after the

primary instruction has been introduced. It is recommended, thus, that students who have not

succeeded in the first instruction have an immediate chance to remedy their mistakes. Thus,

the teacher provides enrichment activities to the students who have mastered the material.

Those who have not attained mastery do correctives and second formative test. Correctives

serve the role of remediation; their basic characteristic is “that it teaches the same material in

a way that is different from the way it was originally taught.” (Thomas R. Guskey, 1985, p:

63) That is, repeating the same method that was adapted in the original instruction and that

has already been proved failure should be put aside, searching for a new way that is

compatible with the learning styles and entry characteristics of the learners who have not yet

mastered the material. For the correctives to serve a functional role and to draw a new strategy

for learning, it has to “ present the material differently from the way it was originally

presented.‟ Correctives „must make students participate in the learning process in a way that is

different from the way they were taught” (Thomas R. Guskey, 1985, p: 63, 64)

Second Formative Test

After the teacher has provided the learning alternatives, enrichment and correctives, to

the students who have mastered and the ones who have not yet mastered the set objectives of

the unit, he conducts a second test on the same material he has taught in the initial instruction.



36

Assuring that 90% of students or more have achieved mastery rate of learning, the group is,

thus, ready to carry on the process of studying through moving on to a new material.

Summative Test

The teacher administers summative tests which usually take more time than formative

tests after covering several units. For instance, summative tests would probably take an hour,

an hour and a half or two hours depending on the units the teacher has taught, unlike

formative tests which would probably last for five to ten minutes. The purpose of such

evaluation is to make sure that all the material is mastered. Unlike formative tests which cover

small portion of the course, one unit for instance, summative tests might cover two, three, four

or even more units. Summative tests are equally important since each student has to have a

grade at the end, and these grades are usually sent to parents and administration. Besides,

summative tests help to determine the extent to which students have mastered a particular

skill or task. In this regard, Thomas R. Guskey (1985) argues that „the main purpose of a

summative examination is to gather cumulative information on students‟ learning so grades

can be assigned or competence in a particular skill or task can be determined.‟ (Thomas R.

Guskey, 1985, p: 79, 80)

f) The Role of the Teacher in Mastery Learning

Mastery Learning is marked by flexibility in application, and we may probably find

two or more teachers implementing Mastery Learning differently but effectively, although

they implement it in a different grade level, different subject and probably different school.

They, teachers, follow the same procedures of instruction, which are the core of Mastery

Learning strategies, including formative tests, correctives, enrichment activities and

summative tests to empower the students skills. However, the way these activities are

conducted may differ from one teacher to another.

Besides this flexibility in implementing Mastery Learning, the teacher‟ role is to

facilitate the learning process. Unlike the traditional instruction in which the teacher serves as

a “rule maker and director of the competition‟ between students who try to win grades the

teacher provides, and in which „comparing each student‟s progress to that of her or his

classmates tend to intensify a sense of competition among students. And it makes them

recognize that helping a classmate might jeopardize their own chances of “success.”( (Thomas

R. Guskey. 1985, p: 14)Mastery Learning teacher creates a sense of cooperation among



37

students, students are graded according to what they have mastered and they spontaneously

help each other instead of competing each other. Thus, as Guskey (1985) argues, “the teacher

becomes more of an instructional leader and learning facilitator and less of a competing

manager.”

In a nutshell, Mastery Learning theory sounds very practical in the sense that it

provides the opportunity of success and achievement to every individual student; it, in fact,

seeks justice and equality of education to all the learners through using a powerful method of

instruction which is based on formative testing, diagnosing students problems, providing the

time needed for those who have not yet mastered the material and finally producing powerful

competent students who would contribute to the empowerment of society either economically,

socially and culturally. In addition, Mastery Learning forsakes the traditional approach of

learning, which was basically built upon competition and classification of students so as to

give grades, and adopts a new method of teaching which allow the chance for success for

every learner, and which is basically cooperative rather than competitive. Besides, Mastery

Learning saves time, a fact which would allow the teacher to allocate more assignments to his

students.



38



39

Assumption

The theoretical part provided us with different ideas about the methods of teaching

English as a foreign language. Traditional teaching methods emphasize the teacher as the

authority or as the model in the classroom. Then, we discovered that through applying these

traditional methods, students could not, in fact, reach a high level of competence in English

proficiency, a fact which seems to prevail mainly among undergraduate students at university,

is due to the following factors: individual‟s different background and low motivation stand as

an obstacle that impedes the achievements of the learners during high school. Traditional

methods established a sort of competition among students who try to get good grades, only

few students could attain good grades in comparison to their classmates, and students usually

learn a particular subject on the basis of their natural inherent features, such as aptitude andintelligence.

Striving to look for a suitable solution to these problems, exemplified in students‟

difficulty to become proficient is due to their different backgrounds, aptitude and motivation,

we have gone over Mastery Learning theory, and we assume that this theory can provide

teachers with strategies that would probably melt down the individual different backgrounds

that prevail in the Moroccan public schools and motivate students to learn cooperatively, and

we will also attempt to inquire about the validity of Mastery Learning and the extent to which

it can solve such problems in the Moroccan context.

I. Methodology

1. Data Collection

This research paper adopts a survey method so as the enable us to establish the main

techniques English language teachers in Moroccan high schools apply to overcome the

problem of individual differences among students, mainly the way they teach students, the

way they manage the teaching material, tests and evaluation and chiefly the way they manage

their time to teach the scheduled objectives. Quantitative data are used in this study as a main

source of information, basically questionnaires distributed to 18 teachers of English.

2. Informants

While collecting the data for this research project, we targeted male and female teachers

in Moroccan high schools in the region of Tadla Azilal. All these teachers were trained in the

Regional Pedagogical Centers and their minimum qualifications were a diplomat in teaching



40

English, BA degree and some of them are now preparing their master‟s degree in English

Literature. All these teachers are currently teaching English as a foreign language, and their

teaching experience varies. Some of them have started their career long ago and others are

new to the field of TEF. They have been teaching English in the Moroccan high between 1-33

years. For the purpose of extracting reliable data for our research paper, we should note that

we have handed out 18 questionnaires, and attended a course of English in Hassan II high

school. The results of the data we have collected will be presented as follows: Questionnaire

analysis, discussion of the data we have collected and finally some suggestion to overcome

the problem of individual differences among the learners of EFL.

3. Data Analysis

Question 2

What approach(s) or method(s) do you use in teaching EFL?

Figure: 1

Figure 1 demonstrates that 56% of teachers use Communicative Language Teaching,

11% of teachers use TBA and DM, 5% admitted that they use GTM, while 17% reported that

they use an eclectic method. It seems thus that CLT is the most prevailing method used by the

teachers, and it is one of the theories which is compatible with Mastery Learning principles of

instruction.

GTM

5%DM

11%

CLT

56%

TBA11%

CLIL

17%

Approaches and Methods used in teaching EFL in Moroccan

hight schools



41

Question 3

How many students do you usually have in classroom?

Figure: 2

As figure 2 shows, 6% of teachers reported that they usually have between twenty and

thirty students in the classroom, 5% admitted that they have more than forty students in a

class, 28% said they have forty students while the majority, 61%, demonstrated that the

number of students is between thirty and forty. The latter rate is by no means a hindrance to

the application of Mastery Learning in Moroccan Public schools.

Question 4

Which types of teaching do you favour?

Figure: 3

The figure above shows that 41% of the teachers admitted that they prefer whole class

instruction while others maintained that group based instruction (23%) is the norm. Other

informants reported that they favor individualized instruction (18%), while (18 %) advocated

both group-based and individualized instruction. It is implied from the above results that

0% 5% 6%

28%

61%

0%

The number of students in a classroomTwenty

Thirty

Between twenty and

thirty

Forty

Between thirty and

Forty

41%

23%

18%

18% 0%

Types of teaching favouredWhole Class instruction

Group-based instruction

Individualised instruction

whole class and group based

instruction

All types of instruction



42

most teachers prefer whole class instruction, a fact which is not helping in combating

individual differences among students. Individualizing instruction is probably the best way to

reduce the gap between students.

Question 5

Do you specify the objectives before you begin a new instructional material?

Number of informants Percentage

Yes 17 94 %

No 1 6%

Total 18 100%

Figure: 4

a) What is meant by learning objectives?

Figure: 5

Learning objectives means the goals the teacher sets to teach his students for a given

period of time. Usually, the table of specification is utilized to guide the teacher and his

students to achieve the objectives set for a particular unit or units. These objectives can be

divided into short term objectives, intermediate objectives and long term objectives. In the

table above, figure 3, we notice that 94% of the teachers specify the learning objectives, while

only 5% admitted that they don‟t specify the learning objectives. This demonstrates that

specifying the learning objectives is a basic step the teacher employs to manage the course on

the basis of stated objectives.

Concerning figure 4 which addresses the question of what do teachers mean by learning

objectives, we notice that while nearly all teachers acknowledged that they specify the

Number of

informants

Percentage

What students are required to learn 7 39%

The objectives provided by a textbook 5 27%

The content of the course 1 6%

What the students are required to learn,

and what is provided by a text book.

1 5%

The objectives of the textbook and the

content of the course

1 10%

All of these 1 6%

What the students are required to learn and

the content of the course

1 5%

Total 18 100%



43

learning objectives, their views as regards the meaning of the learning objectives vary from

one to another. Whereas (39%) of teachers stated that the learning objectives are what the

students are required to learn, (27%) maintain that the learning objectives are what the

textbook provides. We also notice that a small number of teachers either make a combination

and define the learning objectives as what the students are required to learn and what is

provided by a text book (6%), the objectives of the textbook and the content of the course

(10%), what the students are required to learn and the content of the course, or consider all

these elements as objectives (6%).

The variation in teachers‟ opinions demonstrates that they don‟t really have a clear

vision about what is meant by objectives in its modern sense in language teaching. 39% and

27% of teachers conceive objective as what the students are required to learn and what is

dictated by a textbook respectively. This traditional style that depends on a heavy textbook

that obliges the teacher to end the schedule of the textbook affects badly the performance of

students who have different backgrounds.

Question 6

Do you divide the material into smaller units?

The number of informants Percentage

Yes 16 89 %

No 12 11%

Total 18 100%

Figure: 6

1. Time the teacher spends in a unit:

Figure: 7

5%

33%

56%

6%

Time spent in a unit

An Hour Two days One to two weeks Others



44

Figure 6 and figure 7 deal with the question whether teachers divide the material into

small units or not and how much time they spend in a unit. From figure 5, we can deduce

that the majority of the informants (89%) divide the material into small units and only 11%

of them reported they do not divide the material into small units. This percentage

demonstrates that Teachers are aware of the importance of dividing the material to be

taught into smaller units so that students can keep the pace of learning. To see whether this

division really works and coheres with the other elements of learning for master, we should

first look into the time teachers spend in a particular unit.

Figure 6 shows the time teachers spent in a unit. The majority argued that they spend

one to two weeks (56%). Others stated that they spend two days in a unit (33%), only 5%

have chosen an hour, and 6% chose other options. The latter claimed that time spent in a

unit depends on the objectives set for learning and on the students‟ performance during the

process of learning.

Question 7

Do you divide the material into short term objective, medial objectives or long

term objectives?

Figure 8

The results tabled above indicate that teachers of English in Moroccan high school

chose different approaches in dividing the material into either short term objective, medial

objective or long term objectives. 34% announced that they use all these types of objectives,

27%assert that they use short term and long term objectives, some stated that they use long

term objectives (11%) and few others pronounced that they use medial objectives.

Short term

Objectives

22%

Medial Objectives

6%

Long term

objectives

11%All of these

34%

short term and

long term

objectives

27%

Learning Objectives



45

This table does give an unclear vision regarding the specification of learning objective.

The normal practical choice, all the objectives-short term, medial and long term- has not

reached a comfortable percentage, and hence dividing the objectives is an obstacle that

impedes the learning and the performance of students, and it is not in favor of reducing the

differences in the students‟ background.

Question 8

Do you conduct the first formative test after you have finished teaching a unit?

Figure: 9

A. How much does a formative test take?

Figure: 10

The first formative test serves a significant role in the process of learning for one simple

reason: it informs the teacher about the overall knowledge of the students on what is being

learned. It, in other words, assists the teacher identify the students who have mastered the unit

and those who have not so as to schedule remedial activities for those who have not mastered

and enrich those who have learned well.

Figure 9 classifies the teachers who carry out the first formative test after finishing a

unit to diagnosis the class and those who do not: 72% of the teachers reported that they

72%

22%

6%

First Formative Test

Yes

No

Sometimes

25%

44%6%

25%

Time spent in the first formative TestFive to ten

minutes

One hour

two hours

others



46

administer the first formative test, 22% announced that they do not hold it and 6% reported

they do administer it only sometimes.

We conclude that the first formative test is not applied by all teachers, and thus tutors

will not be able to identify the students who have not mastered the unit. As a result,

individuals‟ different backgrounds would remain inherent in the process of learning, and the

gap between them widens after covering several units, resulting in some few good students

and a small proportion of average students. Neglecting the first formative test after a unit has

been covered is therefore a real challenge that contributes in the maintenance of the gap

between good learners and poor learners.

As for figure 10 which concerns the time spent in the first formative test, it is

demonstrated that 44% of teachers acknowledge that they allocate an hour for the first

formative test; only 25% of the teacher reported they spend five to ten minutes in the first

formative test. Besides, 6% of respondents say they devote two hours for the test, and some

other assumed that the time allocated for the first formative test, or a short quiz as they

reported, depend highly on the material taught in the unit.

Looking into the above figures 9 and 10, we notice that the majority of teachers use the

first formative test after they have finished the first unit (72%); however, the time dedicated to

this activity goes beyond the limits of the usual formative tests which take, usually, five to ten

minutes in Mastery Learning. There is, as a result, a contradiction in the methods that teachers

use. This lack of time management stands as another impediment that is not helping in

overcoming individual‟s different background. It only widens the gap between students and

maintains the differences among them.

Question 9

Do you provide students with corrective activities?

Figure: 11

100%

0%Corrective Activities

Yes No



47

Figure: 12

Figure: 13

Corrective activities are introduced after the teacher has conducted the first formative

test. These activities target the students who have not achieved mastery in the initial

instruction. It is a process of re-teaching that enables these students to become proficient as

their pairs in a particular task. We notice in figure 11 that all teachers (100%) provide

correctives to their students. However, figure 12 reveals that correctives are not provided only

to those who have not mastered the unit, but rather to the whole class. Nearly, all teachers,

89%, affirmed that they dedicate correctives to the whole group while only 11% admitted that

they provide correctives for those who have not achieved mastery.

Again, the time allocated to corrective activities varies: only 28% of teachers declaredthey spend two to four minutes in correctives, 33% of them admitted they allocate 30min and

39% announced they spend an hour in correctives.

As the above figures, 11, 12, 13, demonstrate, the issue of time management in

traditional methods of teaching handicaps individuals‟ performance and their overall

competence, and it contributes negatively in establishing a perpetual gap during the process of

learning and results in a kind of inequality among students who have probably the same

potential for success in a particular task if their backgrounds are taken into account.

0% 11%

89%

Students who are Provided with Correctives

those who have mastered

the unit

Those who have not

mastered the unit

Whole Class

28%

39%

33%

Time Spent in Correctives

Two to Four minutes

30 min

An Hour



48

Question 10

Do you provide enrichment activities?

Figure: 14

Figure: 15

To whom these activities are provided?

Figure: 16

88%

6% 6%

Enrichment ActivitiesYes No If needed

6%

76%

6%6% 6%

Time Spent in Enrichment Activities

5 minutes An Hour 30 min 45min It depends on the material

5% 6%

89%

Students who are Provided with EnrichmmentThose who have mastered the unit

Those who have not mastered the unit

Whole class



49

For students who achieve mastery and learn quickly, they will spend more time doing

enrichment activities, as well as helping other students who have not mastered the contents of

the unit. These enrichment activities are an expansion of the concepts the whole class is

working on, and allow the students to reinforce the concepts they have learned and to apply

them in new different ways.

The above figures introduce the responses of our informants regarding enrichment

activities. Figure 14 shows the percentage of teachers who give enrichment activities to their

students, figure 15 displays the time teachers spend in these activities and finally figure 16

presents students who are provided with enrichment. The first figure shows that 88% of the

teachers provide enrichment activities, while only 6% of the teachers do not give enrichment,

and only 6% provide them solely if needed. However, the time they spent in enrichment

activities seems incompatible with the strategies of Mastery Learning since the majority of

teachers (76%), as demonstrated in the figure 15, dedicate an hour to enrich students instead

of five to ten minutes. Other teachers use time variably to enrich students: some say they

define the time of the enrichment on the basis of the material they teach (6%), some others

stated that they dedicate 45 min (6%) while others asserted that they commit 30 min (6%) and

few dedicate 5 min (6%).

As regards the students who are provided with enrichment activities, nearly all teachers

admitted that they provide it to the whole class (89%), and only 6% of them announced they

provide enrichment for those who have mastered the unit. It seem, thus, that, though the

majority of teachers reported that they provide enrichment activities, the time spent in this

activities does not match the procedures of Mastery Learning. Hence, the methods that are

employed by teachers lack consistency and coherence.

Question 11

Do you use the same techniques of instruction you already used in the initial instruction

after to teach those who have not mastered the unit?


Yes 3 17%

No 15 83%

Total 18 100%

Figure: 17

We deduce from the figure 17 that the majority of informants (83%) stated that

they do use different techniques of instruction to teach those who have not mastered the unit,

while 17% inform us that they do not change the techniques of instruction. Variation in the



50

techniques of instruction allows the learners who have different styles of learning understand

when the teacher uses other techniques. Actually, there are different styles of learning and

different types of intelligence (Gardner‟s theory of multiple intelligence); some students grasp

the course visually through pictures, simulations and gestures, while others learn only through

listening. Hence, the informants seem to be aware of the importance of variation in the

techniques of learning so that the learners with different learning styles have a chance to learn

well when they are given another opportunity.

Question 12

How many students have achieved mastery after you have finished teaching a

unit?

The number of

informants

Percentage

60% 12 67%

85% to 95 % 5 27%

100% 1 6%

Total 18 100%

Figure: 18

Considering Figure 18, it is noticeable that the majority of teachers (67%) claim that

the level of mastery of the contents after they have finished the units reaches 60%; others

(16%) maintain that 85% to 95% achieve mastery, but only 6% of the teachers stated that all

students achieve mastery.

Careful reading of these results makes it clear that students do not master the specified

objective of the units scheduled by the teacher. As a result, individual‟s background play a

central role in determining the final results of the students after finishing a unit or several

united. Keeping up the pace of learning of students with poor background in a particular task,

thus, seems to be difficult as long as they are not involved in a consistent procedure that

guarantees mastery. Mastery Learning seems to handle this issue depending on a regular plan

that takes into account all the influences that impede students‟ achievements.



51

Question 13

Do you organize a second formative test?

The number of

informants

Percentage

Immediately after correctives

and enrichment

0 0%

After a day 4 22%

After a week 8 45%

After a month 6 33%

Total 18 100%

Figure: 19

The second formative test, retesting, takes place after the learning alternatives,

correctives and enrichment have been completed. The teacher tests the students who have not

succeeded in the first test in the same material but in a different way. The table above shows

the percentage of informants who hold the second formative test.

It is quite surprising that none of the respondents provide the second formative test

immediately after correctives and enrichment activities. All of them administer a formative

test only after a day (22%), after a week (45%) or after a month (33%). These results imply

that Moroccan teachers of EFL are not aware of the effectiveness and practicability of

evaluation and reevaluation to assure that all students progress with the same pace of learning.

Question 14

Do you provide the prerequisites for the second unit?

The number of

informants

Percentage

Yes 14 77%

No 4 23%Total 18 100%

Figure: 20

The teacher decides, before teaching the material, that there are prerequisites, facts and

skills that the students have to have prior to starting a new unit. When the teacher makes sure

that all students have most of the skills and prerequisites, he is then ready to proceed with the

class units consistently. Figure 20 shows that the majority of teachers (77%) provide

prerequisites before starting a unit to make sure that each student is ready to move on to the

next unit, while only 23% announced they do not give prerequisites.



52

a. How much time do prerequisites take?


Two to four minutes 1 7%

Ten minutes 12 86%

Two hours 1 7%Total 14 100%

Figure: 21

As regards the time spent in enrichment activities, we notice in figure 21 that 86% of

the informants have chosen ten minutes for prerequisites which is not compatible with time

spent in prerequisites in Mastery Learning strategy. 7% of the informants stated that they

spent two hours doing prerequisites while another 7% maintained that two to four minutes

suffice to provide prerequisites.

b. What kind of material do you explain in the prerequisites?

The number of

informants

Percentage

The material you have

taught in the previous unit

1 6%

The material you intend to

teach in the second unit

9 66%

Both of them 4 28%Total 14 100%

Figure: 22

Inquired about the material they teach in prerequisites, our informants stated the

following: 66% admitted that they explain the material they intend to teach in the second unit

to make sure that students have the same background information about the subject of the

second unit. Only 6% maintain that they explain what has been taught in the initial

instruction, and 28% stated that they explain both what has been taught in the first unit and

what is going to be taught in the second unit.

The three figures which deal with prerequisites show that the informants are possibly

aware of the significance of prerequisites. However, prerequisites seem to consume much

time. The latter obstructs the learning process.



53

Question 15

Do you administer a summative test?


Yes 15 86%No 3 14%

Total 18 100%

Figure: 23

Summative evaluation is usually held after covering several units, and it usually

takes, in Mastery Learning strategy, an hour, and hour and half or two hours sometimes. In

figure 23, it is apparent that the majority of teachers (86%) adopt this strategy to test their

students while 14% of the informants do not hold summative tests. How many units does this

summative test cover and how long does it last?

A. The number of units the summative test covers:


One unit 0 0%

Two units 4 22%

All the units the teacher

covers

14 78%

Total 18 100%

Figure: 24

Concerning the number of units the summative test covers, figure 24 reveals that the

majority of respondents (78%) cover all the units in the summative evaluation and 22% noted

that the only cover two units. It is implied from this table that nearly all teachers use

summative tests and cover all the units that they cover in class. What stands as impediment to

the overall proficiency in English is the fact that the final summative test is not founded on a

strong basis since the steps that preceded it are not well dealt with by most of the informants.

For instance, the first and the second formative tests do not take place on the basis of aconsistent strategy that respects the time devoted to the test which usually consumes much

energy fruitlessly.



54

Question 16

What is the purpose of the summative test?


Grade students 2 12%To end a term 0 0%

To begin a new term 1 5%

To examine students

overall competence in the

material you have taught

7 38%

To grade students and test

their competence

8 45%

Total 18 100%

Figure: 25

The summative test is usually held by teachers to check on the overall achievement of

the students on a particular task. It tells the teacher how much students have accomplished.

Figure 25 denotes that 45% of the informants hold summative tests to grade students as well

as to examine the student‟s overall competence, 38% asserted that summative evaluation is

meant to examine students overall competence in the material that has been taught, few

informants (12%) have noted that summative tests are meant for grading the students only and

5% believed this test is done to begin a new term.

Question 17

How much time does a summative test take?


30min 0 0%

60min 9 50%

90min 4 22%

120min 5 28%

Total 18 100%

Figure: 26

As for the time spent in a summative test, it becomes evident that the informants devote

acceptable space of time although the whole process of Mastery Learning is not adopted.

Some of its basic elements are missing. Figure 26 shows that 50% of respondents commit 60

min for the exam, 28% devote 120 min and 22% allocate 90 min for summative tests.



55

Question 18

How do you grade students?


Comparing their sheets 0 0%Grading them on the basis

of what they have mastered

18 100%

Total 18 100%

Figure: 27

As noted earlier in the theoretical part, traditional teachers grade students on the basis of

comparing their sheets, their aptitude, which is usually defined as the inherent capacity to

learn, such as intelligence. Teachers in this traditional sense discriminate and make

comparison between students while grading them. Although figure 27 shows that all teachers

grade students on the basis of what they have mastered, it seems contradictory when we look

at the number of students who succeed to master the unit.

Question 19

After the summative test has been done, how do you rate the performance of the

students?


All students achieved mastery 1 5%Few students achieved mastery 3 17%

50% achieved mastery 11 61%

85% to 95% achieved mastery 3 17%

Total 18 100%

Figure: 28

The table above shows the performance of the students according to the informant;

60% of the informants said that 50% achieved mastery, 17% of the respondents said that few

number of students achieved mastery, others maintained that 85% to 95% gained mastery and

only 5% said that all students mastered the material set up for the units.

The informants in the previous figure informed us that they give grades on the basis

of what the students have mastered. However, figure 28 demonstrates that the majority of

teachers noted that only 50 percent of the students achieved master, a fact which is totally

divorced from what is stated in the earlier figure that students are graded on the basis of what

they have master. Figure 28 makes it plain that there is a sort of inconsistency and

incoherence in the strategies of learning which do not help in overcoming individualdifferences.



56

Question 20

Do you think that individual differences hinder the process of learning and

students overall competence in English proficiency

The number of informants PercentageYes 13 73%

No 5 27%

Total 18 100%

Figure: 29

Asked about whether individual differences hinder the process of learning and

students‟ overall competence in English proficiency, the majority of the informants stated that

individual differences really impede the process of learning and students competence. It is

deduced, thus, that nearly all teachers are aware of the influence of individual differences;however, most of them do not adopt a procedure that assist in melting down these individual

differences. Learning for mastery or Mastery Learning is a strategy that would probably solve

the problems of individual differences if teachers abide strictly by its consistent procedures

and that would probably minimize the achievement gap between students.

4. Overall Discussion

It is evident from the information shown in the tables above that the majority of

teachers of EFL admit that individual differences obstruct the process of learning and the

students‟ performance in class. However, although teachers are fully aware of these

differences, they still partially manage their classes on the basis of traditional methods which

are centered upon the objectives of the textbook to be fulfilled at the end of the term or at the

end of the year, widening the achievement gap between students who have different

backgrounds. Although traditional teaching methods may be effective in teaching EFL, its

strategies seem ineffective, especially when individual difference prevail among students. The

importance of Mastery Learning is that its procedure can be used while applying whatever

method or approach of teaching.

The questionnaires provided us with an insight about the procedures and steps

teachers adopt while they are teaching. We noticed first that most teachers prefer

Communicative Language Teaching (56%). The latter is recommended by the Ministry of

Education, and it sets qualifying students to achieve communicative competence and to be

able to interact in situations where English is used as its major goal. It is close in its principalsto Mastery Learning. However both Mastery Learning and Communicative Language



57

Teaching close in terms of principles and procedures, we traced some divergences which may

stand as an obstacle for both teachers and students to attain the objectives set up for learning.

The first problem that arises in applying traditional methods is that of time. We

noticed that nearly all teachers divide the material into small units (89%), specify the

objectives (94%), conduct the first formative test (72%), give enrichment activities (88%) and

correctives (100%), and nearly all of them organize a summative evaluation. What is

noticeable in these tables, however, is that almost all teachers consume much time doing

enrichment, correctives, or tests. The fact that teachers spend an hour doing correctives and

enrichment or any other activity hinders the whole process of achieving mastery in a

particular subject. Besides, the informants admitted that their divergent activities are devoted

to all students: those who have mastered the material in the initial instruction and to those

who have not mastered the material in the initial instruction. Thought our informants seem to

use some principles of Mastery Learning, potentially, their unawareness of the procedures of

Mastery Learning or perhaps their conservatism, inclination to use traditional methods,

betrays them. Mastery Learning strategy is basically founded upon the notion of time and the

link it makes between all its components; one element is closely related to the other and if one

is missing, the process of learning will not proceed naturally and will not result in proficient

learners.

It is manifest, therefore, that in the light of traditional methods which usually focus

on whole class instruction instead of individualized instruction, a fact demonstrated in figure

12 and figure 16 respectively and which show that correctives (89%) and enrichments (89%)

are provided to the whole class. Teachers focus on the whole class instruction can have

negative effects on the students who have poor backgrounds in a particular topic or subject.

Though the majority of respondents argued that they prefer all types of instruction, group-

based, individualized instruction and whole class instruction (Figure 3), figures 12 and 16

show some contradiction since nearly all teachers admitted that they provide the learning

alternatives to the whole class instead of focusing empowering those who have not learnt well

in the initial instruction and enrich those who have mastered the unit.

Despite the fact that the Ministry in charge of education implemented successive

reforms to improve the performance of students‟ languages, especially EFL, much work is

still needed in this respect since all the initiatives made by different actors(teacher, family,

local associations) seem to be insufficient due to many reasons: large classes, the absence of



58

didactic materials, especially technological devices which are universally recognized as

effective means of teaching foreign languages, especially EFL, reconsideration of the text

book which seem unattractive at the level iconography, aesthetic, and content, especially in an

age where Information and Communication Technology offers an appropriate images which

create and contribute in intrinsic motivation.

In short, our survey questionnaire demonstrates that nearly all teachers acknowledge

that individual differences hinder the process of learning. Although teachers are aware that

this factor does not assist students to learn equally, it seems that the procedures and learning

methods employed in Moroccan high school are partly traditional and do not account for the

problem of individual differences.

5. Suggestions

The study has established that the teachers of EFL in the Moroccan high schools are

partially adopting traditional methods which hinder the process of learning and which

maintain individual differences. In this regard, we suggest, in brief, the following:

Mastery Learning is a modern method that is proved to eliminate individuals‟ different

backgrounds. Applying it would help teachers overcome the issue of individual

differences.

Being aware, first, of these differences.

Minimizing the number of students in class.

Technology Assisted Teaching

Intrinsic motivation

The requirement of the theory of multiple intelligence in order that each individual

completes the other.( Learning in Pairs)

Variation in activities so that students with different styles of learning have a chance

to learn on the basis of their own aptitude.

Keeping the same pace of these students

The training of teachers to master the techniques of Mastery Learning is an urgent

necessity to deal with individual differences efficiently.



59

Conclusion

In the preceding chapters of this research paper, we have examined the main

characteristics of some traditional methods, namely Grammar Translation Method, Audio-

Lingual Method, the Direct Method and Communicative Language Teaching, versus

Constructivism and Mastery Learning Theories as modern methods. We have discovered that

the roles of both teachers and students in traditional approaches are totally different as

opposed to their roles in modern methods. That is, traditional methods are teacher-cantered

methods in the sense that the teacher dominates the situation; he is the authority and the

model in terms of knowledge. As regard individual differences, we noticed that these

methods did not give much consideration to this crucial component that impedes the process

of learning. Students are intended to be passive information receivers; that is to say, they are

obliged to learn information delivered to them with a view to reproduce in the exam, for

instance, what they have learnt. This type of instruction which usually targets whole class and

in which the instructor spends much time explaining to those who mastered the material and

those who have not simultaneously.

Modern methods, by contrast, are totally different from the foregoing ones. For

example, the teacher in a classroom where Constructivism and Mastery Learning are applied

is no longer the authority or the source of knowledge, but rather he or she is a facilitator.

Knowledge, therefore, is no longer transferred from the teacher to students, but it is

constructed and built up by the learners; this automatically means that students are active

information producers in the sense it is they who are active and dynamic. Modern methods,

thus, consider individual‟s entry characteristics and background through adopting strategies

that make teaching more individualised rather than collective. The first stance considers the

rhythm of each individual and treats learners on equal footing in terms of achievements. All

students, in spite of their different background, have the same potentials to master the material

the teacher assigns.

The observation upon which the subject matter of this research paper in founded is that

undergraduate students‟ poor and different performances can be probably attributed to what

they have inherited from the preceding stages through which they come to university, high

school. These preceding stages, we assume, do not consider differences in the learners‟

backgrounds or adopt a professional method that could bridge the gap between those who



60

have poor backgrounds and their counterparts who have strong background in a particular

subject.

This study adopted a questionnaire survey directed to English language teachers in

Moroccan high schools in the region of Tadla Azilal, and it addressed the issue of the

teachers‟ treatment of individual differences among students, inquiring what techniques and

strategies they use to overcome this issue and proposing that Mastery Learning techniques

would be helpful in this mission towards equality in achievement and success.

This study, thus, indicates that most teachers do not implement Mastery learning

strategies, though the majority acknowledged that they organize diagnostic tests, formative

evaluation, provide enrichment and correctives, conduct summative evaluation and most of all

they all agree that individual differences exist and influence the performance of the students.

However, despite their awareness of these differences, the teachers seem to stick to the old

traditional methods of instruction which do not contribute effectively in bringing those

learners with poor backgrounds and those with strong backgrounds together at the level of

achievement and proficiency in a particular subject.



61

Bibliography

Diane Larsen-Freeman, Techniques and Principles in Language

Teaching , Oxford University Press, 2000

Dictionary.com Unabridged, Based on the Random House

Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2011. 05/03/2013,

19h00.

J. C. Richards and Theodore S. Rodgers, Approaches and Methods in

Language Teaching , Cambridge University Press, 1986.

Jack C. Richard and Richard Schmidt, Longman Dictionary ofLanguage Teaching and Applied Linguistics , Pearson Education

Limited, 2002.

James H. Block and Lorin W. Anderson, Mastery Learning in

Classroom Instruction : 1975, Macmillan Publishing Co.,Inc.

Keith S. Taber, Constructivism as Educational Theory:Contengency in

Learning, and Optimally Guided I nstruction , Journal of CambridgeStudies, 2002.

Mentali stic Theory and Language learning , Prof. Dr. Demirezen,

Hacette& HaL: ettepe Üniversitesi Egi tim Fakültesi Dergisi Yıl 1989 /

S~yı 4: / ss. 153-160

Mohamed Q. Al-Shormani, The Natur e of Language acquisition ,

CALTS, university of hyderbad, 2009.

Naji Moha & Sadiqi Fatima. Applications of Modern L inguistics ,

Afrique Orient, 1994.

P. Thompson, Radical Constructivism: Reflections and Di rections ,

London: Flamer Press, 2000.

Skinner B. F. Verbal Behaviour , Prentice hall, 1957.



Skinner B. F. Science and Human Behaviour , New York: the Free

Press, 1953.

Thomas R. Guskey, Implementing Mastery Learning, Wadsworth

Publishing Company, Belmont, California, 1985.

Richards J. C., Communicative Language Teaching Today , Cambridge

University Press, 2006.

research paper(whole paper)

Documents