Mastery

A fundamental change in thinking about the nature of instruction was initiated in 1963 when
John B. Carroll argued for the idea of mastery learning. Mastery learning suggests that the focus
of instruction should be the time required for different students to learn the same material. This
contrasts with the classic model (based upon theories of intelligence ) in which all students are
given the same amount of time to learn and the focus is on differences in ability. Indeed, Carroll
(1989) argues that aptitute is primarily a measure of time required to learn.

The idea of mastery learning amounts to a radical shift in responsibility for teachers; the blame
for a student's failure rests with the instruction not a lack of ability on the part of the student. In a
mastery learning environment, the challenge becomes providing enough time and employing
instructional strategies so that all students can achieve the same level of learning (Levine, 1985;
Bloom, 1981).

The key elements in matery learning are: (1) clearly specifying what is to be learned and how it
will be evaluated, (2) allowing students to learn at their own pace, (3) assessing student progress
and providing appropriate feedback or remediation, and (4) testing that final learning critierion
has been achieved.

Mastery learning has been widely applied in schools and training settings, and research shows
that it can improve instructional effectiveness (e.g., Block, Efthim & Burns, 1989; Slavin, 1987).
On the other hand, there are some theoretical and practical weaknesses including the fact that
people do differ in ability and tend to reach different levels of achievement (see Cox & Dunn,
1979). Furthermore, mastery learning programs tend to require considerable amounts of time and
effort to implement which most teachers and schools are not prepared to expend.

The mastery learning model is closely aligned with the use of instructional objectives and the
systematic design of instructional programs (see Gagne, Merrill). The Criterion Referenced
Instruction (CRI) model of Mager is an attempt to implement the mastery learning model. In
addition, the theoretical framework of Skinner with its emphasis on individualized learning and
the importance of feedback (i .e., reinforcement) is also relevant to mastery learning.

References
Block, J. H. (1971). Mastery Learning: Theory and Practice. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.

Block, J. H., Efthim, H. E., & Burns, R.B. (1989). Building Effective Mastery Learning Schools.
New York: Longman.

Bloom, B.S. (1981). All Our Children Learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Carroll, J. B. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record, 64, 723-733.
Carroll, J.B. (1989). The Carroll model: A 25 year retrospective and prospective view.
Educational Researcher, 18(1), 26-31.

Cox, W.F. & Dunn, T. G. (1979). Mastery learning: A psychological trap? Educational
Pyschologist, 14, 24-29.

Levine, D. (1985). Improving Student Achievement Through Mastery Learning Programs. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Slavin, R.E. (1987). Mastery learning reconsidered. Review of Educational Research, 57(2), 175-
214.

Related Resources
Personalized Learning
© 2015 Richard Culatta | Multiple domain web hosting provided by InnovativeLearning

http://www.instructionaldesign.org/concepts/mastery.html
Computing theories on Mastery level

JUMPROPE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

WWW.JUMPRO.PE

What is the Power Law Formula for standards-based grading?

An internet search for “Power Law Formula” results in hundreds of listings in a wide variety of fields
including astronomy, meteorology, and engineering. In his highly regarded book TRANSFORMING
CLASSROOM GRADING, Robert J. Marzano describes the use of this formula for standards-based
grading. The math behind the power law formula is quite complex (see below), but all that’s necessary
for its use is that you know what it does, how to interpret its scores, and when best to use it.
In essence, the power law formula predicts what the student’s next score will be based on scores
already present. It can be thought of as a mathematical calculation that answers the question: “If the
student were assessed right now on a skill, at what level would the student likely perform?” Since a
student’s grade on a standard is meant to be an indication of skill at a certain moment in time, the
power law formula can be used to calculate standard grades.
To gain an Assessment #2 Assessment #3 Assessment #4 Power Law Score Interpretation
(greatest weight)
understanding
of how the
power law
works, let’s
look at sets of
student scores
and the power
law
calculation of
each set. To
keep things
simple, let’s
say there are
four
assessments
and four
students and
each student
has earned
the same
scores 1.00,
2.00, 3.00 and
4.00, but in a
different
order. If we
were to simply
average the
four scores, all
students
would receive
a 2.50.
However, with
the power
law, we’ll get
different
values
because the
power law
puts more
weight on
recent
assessments.
Let’s take a
look: Assessment
#1 (least weight)
Student #1 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 The scores show
continuous
improvement.
The student will
likely
demonstrate
mastery on the
next
assessment.
Student #2 1.00 3.00 2.00 4.00 3.66 The scores show
irregular
improvement.
The student will
likely
demonstrate
high but not
complete
mastery on the
next
assessment.
Student #3 2.00 4.00 1.00 3.00 2.16 The scores show
very uneven
performance.
The student will
likely
demonstrate a
mid-level of
achievement on
the next
assessment.
Student #4 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 1.28 The scores show
continuous
decline. The
student will
likely
demonstrate a
low level of
achievement on
the next
assessment.
JUMPROPE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
WWW.JUMPRO.PE
Options for Calculating Mastery in JumpRope
JumpRope has several options to mathematically calculate mastery for each student and
standard / learning target. We believe that there is merit to each strategy, and we choose not to
legislate in our software. Rather, we give each teacher the ability to pick the calculation type for
every standard, and we give schools the ability to pick a default calculation type.
1. Weighted Average: This calculation type takes an average of all assessments for each
student on each learning target. If teachers assign a weight to an assessment, this will
incorporate the appropriate weight when calculating the average. This method is the easiest to
understand, since it is close to traditional grading systems.
2. Max Value: This calculation type simply takes the highest score ever achieved by each
student on each learning target. In this way, the highest level of mastery ever demonstrated is
what is considered the final level of mastery on a standard. It works well if teachers are only
using robust summative assessments of learning within the JumpRope system, but breaks
down if scores are entered for e.g. formative assessments.
3. Power Law: This calculation type is based on research on cognitive development. It is a
time-based average, and automatically adjusts assessment weights to give higher weight to the
more recent assessments. In this way, it more closely represents true student learning progress.
However, it is more difficult for students to understand or teachers to predict because the
formula is very complex. If you're interested and mathematically-inclined, we'd love for your
input on the power law's exact algorithm, check out the details on the reverse side of this
page.
4. Most Recent: This calculation type carries the most recent assessment score achieved,
based on the date assigned to the assessment (rather than the date the score was entered). As
with Max Value, this works best when all assessments are robust or when a final assessment is
guaranteed to be robust.
5. Decaying Average: This calculation type assigns progressively-decreasing weights to older
assessments. Working backwards, each assessment is worth 66.667% of the teacher-assigned
weight, compounded exponentially. In effect, newer assessments automatically "count more" in
the overall score. Teacher weights still apply.

More information on how JumpRope calculated mastery can be found here:

http://goo.gl/aNx3kl
REPRODUCIBLE
Instructional Planning for Effective Teaching
© 2016 J. H. Stronge • solution-tree.com
Visit
go.solution-tree.com/instruction
to download this page.
Percentage Mastery Formula for New
Learning
Step 1: Percentage Mastery Score
Determine the percentage mastery for your most recent group of
students. For example, if 60 percent of
students were at or above mastery, then the percentage would be 60.
You could also calculate percentage mastery from the average of a
two- or three-unit instruction period.
For example, percentage mastery for the last three units of 50
percent, 60 percent, and 55 percent would
equal an average score of 55 percent.
Step 2: Discrepancy Mastery Score
Subtract the percentage mastery from the maximum possible score
(typically 100 percent). In this example,
the calculation for a one-unit score of 60 percent would be:
100 percent – 60 percent = 40 percent
Thus, 40 percent would be the discrepancy between the most recent
level of performance (60 percent) and
the ideal level of performance (100 percent).
Step 3: Realistic Percentage Mastery Score
Although the ideal performance mastery is for all students to meet or
exceed mastery, achieving 100 per
-
cent participant mastery, in most instances, is not realistic. Thus, a
rule of thumb estimate is to divide the
discrepancy score (40 percent) by half.
40 percent ÷ 2 = 20 percent
This yields a more realistic, achievable percentage mastery goal to be
employed over three to four units
of instruction.
Step 4: Annual Percentage Mastery Score
Divide the realistic percentage mastery score from step 3 by either
three or four units, depending on the
time frame allocated for achieving improvement in percentage
mastery. For example, using a three-unit
period, the calculation would be:
20 percent ÷ 3 units = 6.33 percent (or 6 percent) growth in mastery
per unit
page 1 of 2
REPRODUCIBLE
Instructional Planning for Effective Teaching
© 2016 J. H. Stronge • solution-tree.com
Visit
go.solution-tree.com/instruction
to download this page.
If the goal is achieved, then the results would be similar to the
following example.
•
Ideal mastery score: 100 percent
•
Beginning mastery score: 60 percent
•
Discrepancy mastery score: 40 percent
•
Realistic percentage mastery score: 40 percent ÷ 2 = 20 percent
•
Per unit percentage mastery score: 20 percent ÷ 3 units = 6 percent
per unit (rounded)
•
Unit 1: 60 percent + 6 percent = 66 percent
•
Unit 2: 66 percent + 6 percent = 72 percent
•
Unit 3: 72 percent + 6 percent = 78 percent
page 2 of 2

soltreemrls3.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/solution...
3 Ways Lesson Plans Flop—and How to
Recover
Two Rivers Public Charter School
Grades pre-K to 8 | Washington, DC

November 1, 2016

In an ideal world, all lessons would be flawless, your delivery would be impeccable, and all
students would master the content every day.

Unfortunately, we are human, and so are our students. We all know that there are myriad reasons
that lessons flop, ranging from poor planning to a fight with your boyfriend over breakfast to the
kids already having reached their maximum cognitive load for that day. After eight years of
teaching, I have experienced them all.

When your lesson is failing, you can’t tell a classroom of thirty 6-year-old children “Let me get
back to you about that” or “I miscalculated—give me a moment to revise my thinking.”

You have seconds to decide how to proceed, and all you see is a carpet populated with thirty
wiggling students, their faces looking blankly at you, some of them audibly whining, and many
of them slowly reclining.

When a lesson plan is a flop, sometimes we have the freedom to walk away from it. But
sometimes we have to persevere. What do we do then? After I describe three types of flops, I
have some tips for how to recover from a bad plan.

Three Types of Flops

1. The Flat Flop: “I thought I was clear, but I hear crickets and they’re sleeping.”
Sometimes a flop is a flop and there is no recovering from it. It is not often that a lesson cannot
be salvaged, even if the purpose changes from instruction to assessment. However, it happens.
Sometimes you have to shrug and stop the lesson. Most importantly, do not fight it. There is no
point in pushing through a flat flop. It is more harmful than helpful to push through an
unsuccessful lesson because it drags on and leads to unwanted behaviors.

If you have a flat flop, stop the lesson, play a game, and then start teaching something else. Most
importantly, let it go. It is only a failure if you do not attend to it after the bell rings. Get a cup of
tea and think about what you can do differently to teach the same material again tomorrow.
Second try is the charm!

2. The Shifted Purpose Flop: “They looked engaged, but boy, was I wrong.” Most of the
time, the lesson flop comes as a gradual realization. Students look engaged, they act engaged,
and they’re saying (mostly) the right things, so they go off to do work. However, when you
check in with your students, they don’t get it. This is a golden opportunity to assess, analyze, and
plan for reteaching.

First, with a sampling of kids, figure out what students know and where the misconception or
breakdown is happening. Then work with one student to get her where she needs to be and think
about the steps it took to get her to the goal. Use this to help you plan a wide-scale reteach. You
can even close your Shifted Purpose Flop lesson with a share from the student you helped reach
the goal. Use her work as an anchor for the reteach.

3. The Half Flop: “I thought it was awful, but really it’s not so bad.” This is the reason you
check for understanding. Sometimes students look confused, but really many of them understood
the lesson. It might not be as bad as you think. Many times, it’s only a half flop—if there are
misunderstandings, it may be only among a third or so of the class. Because it is not a majority
of students, you can proceed with a small group reteach while other students practice their new
skills during the next lesson.

Three More Tips to Help You Push Through

Classrooms have to keep going, and sometimes you don’t have the luxury of walking away and
trying again later. It is always important to try to assess and analyze the reasons behind a flop,
especially if you must continue. However, there are several things you can do to make the
experience less painful for you and more enjoyable and successful for your students.

1. Infuse movement. Movement won’t fix everything, but it can get you far. Invite students to
stand, act out the directions or the story you’re reading, or play charades to work with
vocabulary.

2. Take a break. Sometimes students and teachers need to step away and come back with a fresh
perspective. You can give your students this break by having them play an active game, like
freeze dance or charades. Bring some joy into the room—a stressful lesson flop is joyful for no
one.

3. Switch it up. Continuous whole-group instruction with minimal variety can easily lead to
student misbehavior, so mix it up and add variety. Instead of whole-group, independent work,
ask students to collaborate with a partner or small group. Usually students just want to talk. Give
them some time to orally process the material (plus, it’s better that they are talking about the
topic than disrupting class). Give students an opportunity to draw or express their ideas through
art, drama, or movement. Invite them to use a different part of their brain to re-energize so they
can have the stamina to make it through the lesson.

Make Reflection a Habit

Teaching is hard, and it’s important to remember that every lesson—every day and every year—
can lead to improvement. However, improvement only happens when you regularly reflect.
Make it a habit after every lesson. Once you do, you may even find it happening while you are
teaching. These questions can help you get started:
  What did I do that made the flop happen?
 How can I not do that again?
 What should I do differently next time?

How have you handled a flopped lesson? What did you learn from it?

This post is part of our Schools That Work series, which features key practices from Two Rivers
Public Charter School. Anne Gillyard's Profile

https://www.edutopia.org/blog/3-ways-lesson-plans-flop-how-to-recover-anne-gillyard
FORMULA MASTERY LEVEL

How are the Mastery Level scores for each

Standard calculated in the Standards-Based
Gradebook?
Justin Goff — August 25, 2017 09:04

There are many different Mastery Level Calculation Methods. Which ones you choose
depends on what you want your Mastery Scores to measure.

If you want to focus on how each student is doing now, then you should consider the
following Mastery Level Calculation Methods.

 Most Recent: The most recent score is used as the overall score for the Standard. No
other scores are used in the calculation.
 Average of Most Recent 3: The average of the three most recent scores is used as the
overall score for the Standard.
 Decaying Average: The most recent score counts for a certain percentage of the overall
score, and the previous overall score counts for the rest. For instance, with Decaying
Average, 65%, the most recent score counts for 65% and the previous overall score
counts for 35%. This means that everything counts for at least a little bit, but the most
recent scores count for a lot more.
 Power Law: A "best fit" function is used to estimate the student's current level of
mastery based on past performance and improvement.

If you want to focus on each student's top performances, then you should consider the
following Mastery Level Calculation Methods:

 Maximum: The highest score is used as the overall score for the Standard. No other
scores are used in the calculation.
 Average of 3 Highest: The average of the highest three scores scores is used as the
overall score for the Standard.

If you want to focus on how consistently each student has performed throughout the class, then
you should consider the following Mastery Level Calculation Methods:

 Median: The middle score is used as the overall score for the Standard.
 Average: The average of all scores is used as the overall score for the Standard.
Note: Averages are often inappropriate for Standards-Based Grading. You may want to read this
article on averages before choosing Average as your Mastery Level Calculation Method.

Have more questions about Standards-Based Grading? Check out our Introduction to
Standards-Based Grading and our Standards-Based Grading FAQ!