1.0 Instructional Design
Given that the history of education is replete with new ideas that promised to maximize student achievement only to fall short of that goal, we feel it only makes sense to use techniques that have already proven their effectiveness. Consequently, we have rejected the temptation to adopt innovative new approaches based solely on the fact that they sound good—as if this factor alone constitutes reasonable justification for affirming that a given technique will actually improve student academic performance. Instead, our instructional methodology will combine
mastery learning with
criterion-referenced assessment.
1.1 Rationale
Combining mastery learning with criterion-referenced assessment allows for the wide range of differences that exist between individual learners while simultaneously providing for accountability. Underlying the approach is the conviction that, given the right conditions, virtually all students can and will master the required curriculum at grade-level (John B. Carroll 1963, and Benjamin Bloom 1968, 1976).
1.2 Elements
There are three basic components to our version of this instructional model: 1) Objectives will be stated in precise terms with the main focus placed on helping students reach a level of understanding that constitutes satisfactory performance; 2) there will be a reliance on normative information to establish levels of achievement; and 3) student performance will be routinely measured against national and international education standards by regularly assessing the degree to which each individual student has mastered the corresponding academic objectives.
1.3 Pluses and Minuses
One of the advantages of this approach is that it provides specific information about individual student strengths and weaknesses. Moreover, students who have problems reaching the desired criterion level on their first effort are given additional instruction along with other opportunities to show that they can perform at an acceptable level. This makes it more likely that each pupil will gain understanding than would an approach that permits only one try before reporting results. Consequently, it is anticipated that, as in most mastery situations, the proportion of our learners earning above average marks will be higher than in traditional classrooms (James H. Block 1971).
It has also been noted that in a traditional setting both teachers and students often anticipate that only a given percent of pupils will successfully learn what is being taught. This can lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy that eventually destroys the confidence of many students who are legally required to attend school for 10 to 12 years under conditions that become increasingly frustrating and humiliating.
On the other hand, we will spend whatever amount of time is necessary for individual students to learn a given task, allowing more time and providing more systematic instruction for students who do not learn as quickly as their peers (John B. Carroll 1963).
Not surprisingly, research verifies that students taught under mastery conditions learn more than students taught under non-mastery conditions (Slavin, 1987; Block, Efthim & Burns, 1989).
However, this approach demands extra time and effort from the teacher, including careful planning, the preparation of several sets of evaluation materials, extensive monitoring of student progress, establishing defensible standards of mastery, administering and scoring several exams, and devising alternative assignments for students who pass assessments at an acceptable level on their first attempt.
Nevertheless, since students ultimately learn more, develop better attitudes toward school, gain confidence, and feel prouder of themselves, a mastery learning approach is well worth the extra time and effort it requires.
By combining mastery learning with criterion-based assessment we are confident that our students will succeed far beyond the levels typically observed in the U.S.A. as a whole.
In plain language, our instructors will teach by focusing students on objectives taken directly from national and international education standards while they simultaneously do the following:
- Make sure that each student clearly understands exactly what is to be learned.
- Provide motivation.
- Supply instructional materials that foster learning.
- Introduce new material at a rate appropriate for each individual pupil.
- Allot the amount of time necessary for students to learn each new skill.
- Closely monitor student progress.
- Continually diagnose difficulties and provide immediate remediation.
- Give praise and encouragement for good performance or effort.
- Provide ample review and practice.
- Maintain a high rate of learning over an extended period of time.
The above steps require that teachers spend extra time and effort in addition to the hours directly involved in instruction. This effort will include, but will not necessarily be limited to, the following:
- Careful, extensive, and individualized planning.
- Preparation of several sets of evaluation materials.
- Daily review of student progress.
- Drafting defensible standards of mastery.
- Administering and scoring a significant number of exams.
- Devising alternative assignments for students who pass initial tests.
But again, since students ultimately learn more, develop better attitudes toward school, gain confidence, and feel prouder than they would otherwise, a mastery approach is well worth the extra time and effort it requires.
