Mastery Learning, Now More Than Ever.

” Creativity follows mastery, so mastery of skills is the first priority for young talent.” -Benjamin Bloom

The adoption of the Common Core Standards has given schools a structured curriculum to teach and since each student must master those standards at each grade level, the Common Core Standards has brought back to the table the discussion of mastery learning.

Almost 50 years ago John Carroll (1963) proposed a basic assumption of mastery learning, that school learning is a matter of time spent and time needed to learn, and that all students can learn as long as they have sufficient time. In addition to learning time, five other elements were included in Carroll’s theory. They were students’ (a) personal differences in perseverance; (b) aptitude; (c) ability to understand instruction; (d) experiential differences in opportunities to learn; and (e) quality of instruction. Carroll hypothesized that providing students with sufficient time to learn would enable them to compensate for limitations in one of more of these five elements (Zimmerman and Dibenedetto, 2008).

Several years later Benjamin Bloom developed a specific way to use Carroll’s five elements during classroom instruction.  Bloom observed that in a traditional classroom there was a big difference in student’s academic learning, with scores forming a bell-shaped curve.  Despite students’ differences in achievement, normally teachers would proceed on to the next unit under the assumption that those academic differences were inherent.  Bloom proposed a mastery learning approach to instruction wherein students do not move to new topics until prior topics have been mastered. With sufficient instructional time, individual differences in Carroll’s five elements are lessened before addressing the next topic (Guskey, 2005).

Bloom’s mastery learning model involves four components: defining mastery, planning for mastery, teaching for mastery, and grading for mastery.  A key feature of his model is the use of formative assessments that provide both students and teachers with feedback about whether a particular instructional goal, standard, or learning target has been mastered.  Students who do not meet the criteria for mastery are given correctives, such as alternative textbook readings, workbooks, or other varied learning tools. On completion of the correctives, the students take a second formative assessment. If they fail to pass this test as well, they are given additional opportunities to study and retake the tests so virtually all students achieve mastery before moving to the next unit.  Students who have demonstrated mastery on the initial assessment are provided with enrichment material to continue or extend the learning process (Zimmerman and Dibenedetto, 2008).

Blooms two important discoveries regarding children’s learning are: 1) with mastery learning, individual differences in students’ achievement would diminish; he predicted that 90% of the students in a class would achieve a level at which only the top 10% of the students reach under traditional instructional practices; and 2) the weak students who initially need longer time periods to learn will need less time as they master the fundamental material and become familiar with the mastery learning approach (Guskey, 2005).

The mastery learning model is typically a group based, teacher-based approach to instruction in which students learn together with their classmates.  Mastery learning is designed for use in typical classroom situations where instructional time and curriculum are set, and the teacher oversees 25 or more students.  The role of the teacher is that of an instructional leader and facilitator who directs a variety of group-based instructional methods with accompanying feedback and corrective actions (Guskey and Gates, 1986).

Guskey and Gates (1986) reviewed a large collection of out-come based mastery learning studies.  They used meta-analysis techniques to synthesize the results of 27 studies in order to answer several questions about group-based mastery.  The results of this study are as follows:

• Achievement results are overwhelmingly positive but vary greatly from study to study.
• Although students at all levels appear to benefit from mastery learning, effects are somewhat larger in elementary and junior high school classes than at the high school level.
• Although applicable across subjects’ areas, effects in language arts and social studies classes are slightly larger than those attained in science and math classes.
• Students tend to retain what they have learned longer under mastery learning.
• Students in mastery learning classes develop more positive attitudes about learning and about their ability to learn.
• Teachers using mastery learning develop more positive attitudes toward teaching, higher expectations for students, and greater personal responsibility for learning outcomes.

The research on elementary and secondary school group-based mastery learning programs supports the findings of other reviews of effective mastery learning such as those of Block and Burns (1976).  The applications of group-based mastery learning have consistently positive effects on a range of student learning outcomes, including student achievement, retention of learned material, involvement in learning activities, and student affect (Guskey and Gates, 1986).

Bloom’s approach to mastery learning requires that learning objectives be well defined and appropriately sequenced; it requires that student learning be regularly checked, and that immediate feedback be given; and that student learning be evaluated based on criterion-referenced standards (Guskey, 2005).  The changes in NCLB and the creation and adoption of the Common Core Standards as states’ and school districts’ curricula have created the need now more than ever before for mastery learning.

Block, J. H., & Burns, R. B. (1976). 1: Mastery Learning. Review of Research in Education, 4(1), 3–49.

Carroll, J. B. (1963). A model for school learning. Teachers College Record, 64, 723 – 733,

Guskey, T. R. (2005). Formative classroom assessment and Benjamin S. Bloom: Theory, research, and implications. Paper presented the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April 11 – 15, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Guskey, T. R., & Gates, S. L. (1986). Synthesis of Research on the Effects of Mastery Learning in Elementary and Secondary Classrooms. Educational Leadership, 43(8), 73–80.

Zimmerman B.J,&Dibenedetto M.K. (2008). Mastery learning and assessment: Implications for students and teachers in an era of high-stakes testing. Psychol. Sch. Psychology in the Schools, 45(3), 206–216.