Mastery Learning

In Benjamin Blooms’s article “Learning for Mastery. Instruction and Curriculum” (1968), he addresses an issue that I have been having with grades for a while now, that is, the curve. I don’t see the point of telling a class at the beginning of the year that only a percentage of them will leave with an A, another percentage with a B, then a C etc. It is not only discouraging, it makes no sense. As Bloom pointed out, an A from one year may be equivalent to a C from the next year. Why are students graded against each other, and not simply on what they do or do not know?

A second idea that Bloom mentioned that I have been thinking about is cumulative grading. He said that perhaps during the semester, teachers should use tests as a guideline to see what the students know and what they still need to learn to reach the mastery level. If a student receives Cs on the first two tests, it is likely that they will not work as hard for the rest of the semester knowing that they already have a lower grade. However, if teachers give students the opportunity to show that they have mastered the material at the end of the semester, what difference does it make if the student received a C early on? If the student who received straight As during the semester and the student who received two Cs know the exact same material at the end of the semester, in terms of letting that student know that they have reached a “master level”, shouldn’t they both receive the same mark?

Acknowledging that most students can reach a mastery level, or at least a proficient level, if given enough time and the proper instruction should not be so difficult for schools and administrators to handle. The schools that push the hardest for even grade distributions seem to have lost focus. They are not worried about the students’ successes or failures; they are worried about how their school looks on a piece of paper. When this becomes the focus, many students are left out who could have succeeded if given the chance. A note left for one middle school teacher after a student graduated from high school said simply. “Thank you for believing in me when no one else did” (Williams-Boyd, Skaggs, & Ayers, 2000, p. 36). Clearly, by allowing students to make mistakes or take the time they need to master a subject, they are not left feeling inadequate.

Teachers need to set high expectations for their students without setting half of them up for failure. This is done by setting overarching goals for the students, and at the same time, being flexible as you go about attaining them. Students learn differently, and this may mean that the same lesson could be taught differently from one year to the next. A lesson that took one day the year before may take three days the next year ” (Williams-Boyd, Skaggs, & Ayers, 2000). When teachers are in tune with their students’ needs and abilities, and use their students’ abilities to drive the lessons, I think that it is much more likely that a majority of the class will reach a proficient or mastery level by the end of the term.

References

Bloom, B. S. (1968). Learning for mastery. Instruction and curriculum. Evaluation Comment, 1, 2.

Williams-Boyd, P., Skaggs, K., & Ayers, L. (2000). Marriage in the middle: The art and craft of teaching early adolescents. Childhood Education, 76, 4.