View as Webpage

The previous T/TAC Topics, April 2023 edition sent out last week had the wrong article for the title: "Mastery learning and year-end testing." Please take a look at the corrected version below.

We apologize for the error.

As spring approaches, so does the reality of year-end testing. For many grade levels, it means Virginia’s Standards of Learning assessments. During this time, many teachers worry about how they will identify persistent student learning gaps and address them. These gaps may stem from pandemic unfinished learning or not having mastered grade level content yet. Regardless of the cause, learning gaps could negatively impact student performance on these year-end tests and student preparation for the next school year and beyond. So, what is the plan? Mastery learning. 

Mastery learning is not a new instructional strategy. It has been around since the 1960s and the work of Benjamin Bloom (yes, the Bloom of Bloom’s Taxonomy) (Bouchrika, 2021; Prodigy, 2019). According to John Hattie and his meta-analysis on visible learning, mastery learning has an effect size on student achievement of 0.58; meaning mastery learning can result in a student learning more than one year’s content in a single year (Hattie, 2012). In addition, a collection of 279 studies from 1968 to the present indicate 90% of the students who participated in mastery learning had “higher student achievement rates and positive student attitudes” (Prodigy, 2019, para. 2). 

What is mastery learning and how is it implemented? 

Mastery learning is an instructional strategy that “focuses on what students learned and not what the teacher taught” (Hinton, 2021, para. 2). Additionally, mastery learning is an approach that seeks to ensure a student fully understands a concept before moving on to the next concept, which “necessitates teachers to personalize the student’s learning experience, allowing some learners to have additional time to understand the lesson or develop a particular skill” (Bouchrika, 2021, para. 5). It is this additional time that some students need at this point in the school year to fill in their learning gaps and be prepared to demonstrate their level of understanding of grade level standards accurately. 

How can teachers implement mastery learning at this point in the school year? 

Teachers must first identify student learning gaps; which comes by way of formative assessment (Bouchrika, 2021; Guskey, 2010). Once a teacher has identified the content students have not mastered, corrective instruction is required (Bouchrika, 2021; Guskey, 2010). It is important to note that “corrective instruction is not the same as “reteaching”...corrective instruction…accommodate[s] differences in student’s learning styles, learning modalities, or types of intelligence” (Guskey, 2010, p. 55). Moreover, “it means providing a different lesson [and] using a new instructional delivery method” than was used for initial instruction (PowerSchool, 2021, para. 7). After providing corrective instruction, teachers should give a second parallel formative assessment to determine whether or not the student’s learning gap(s) have been filled and whether or not further support is necessary (Guskey, 2010). 

The reference materials below are excellent resources for mastery learning and provide information and tips for implementing this instructional approach. 

References

Bouchrika, I. (2021, June 10). What is mastery learning model? Definition, principles, and examples. Research.com. https://research.com/education/what-is-mastery-learning

Guskey, T. (2010). Lessons of mastery learning. Educational Leadership, 68(2), 52-57. 

Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. Routledge.

Hinton, J. (2021, August 23). Mastery learning and scaffolding for student achievement. Jeffrey A. Hinton. https://www.jeffreyahinton.com/post/mastery-learning-and-scaffolding-for-student-achievement

PowerSchool. (2021, January 27). Six steps for rigorous formative assessment. Powerschool.com. https://www.powerschool.com/blog/six-steps-for-rigorous-formative-assessment/#:~:text=Corrective%20instruction%20is%20not%20re

Prodigy. (2019, September 30). How mastery learning helps every student succeed. www.prodigygame.com. https://www.prodigygame.com/main-en/blog/mastery-learning/

For more information, contact Leslie Murphy-Brown, (lmmurphybrown@vcu.edu), Program Specialist T/TAC at VCU.

Graduation is not a high school outcome; it is the outcome of cumulative instruction, culture, and the efforts of students, teachers, families, and the community. Graduation is the comprehensive outcome following years of participation in a system that works toward academic, social emotional, and behavioral gains. Researchers confirm that multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS) initiatives, using data in alignment across domains, have been shown to increase graduation outcomes for students with disabilities (Ruedel, et al., n.d.). 

The Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network found that systems using early indicators for all grade levels can predict graduation outcomes. When universal screeners and progress monitoring are used with fidelity, these early indicators positively affect outcomes (Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network, 2019). According to the U.S. Department of Education (USDOE), more than half of the high schools in the United States had an early warning system to aid in the identification of students at risk of not graduating. The USDOE defines an early warning system as a data tool based on attendance, behavior, and academic performance data to guide teams in making appropriate decisions regarding potentially at-risk students (U.S. Department of Education, 2016). Yet, how often are we discussing a child's graduation potential at the elementary or middle school levels? Do we look at early indicators within our MTSS system and at each tier prior to graduation?

Researchers found highly predictive indicators of graduation potential for students of all ages. A student who cannot read on grade level by third grade is four times less likely to graduate (Sparks, 2011). The study further notes that socioeconomic status increases the risk by 13 times (Rosalsky, 2011). Additionally, researchers found that children as young as Pre-Kindergarten, who participated in just one year of preschool, increased graduation rates by 6% compared to students who did not participate (Rosalsky, 2021). Further indicators for our youngest students note that missing 10% or more instructional time (excused or unexcused) negatively impacts high school graduation rates (Wisconsin Graduation Rate Improvement Plan, n.d). Examples of early warning metrics for use at all grade levels include (Neild et al., 2007):

• Grade 1: negative teacher behavior ratings
• Elementary grades: mobility during the school year, disengagement, grade retention
• Grade 6-8: 20% or more lost instructional time, one or more days of suspension, poor teacher behavior ratings, a failing grade in EOC [End of Course] math or reading, mobility within a grading period, or end of the year following a difficult experience (Wisconsin Graduation Rate Improvement Plan, n.d.)

School divisions with comprehensive data systems incorporate graduation risk early indicators for all grade levels within their data discussions, making graduation an outcome tied to each grade level and a discussion at all tiers (Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network, 2019). Explore the resources below to learn more about graduation risks and early indicators to help improve data discussions and outcomes.

For more information, contact Kristen O’Sullivan, (osullivankj@vcu.ed), Program Specialist T/TAC at VCU.

Resources 

American Institutes for Research Early Warning Systems Pathway

EBP to increase graduation

National Dropout Prevention Center

Risk Indicators for Not Graduating

References

Neild, R.C., Balfanz, R., & Herzog, L. (2007). An early warning system. Educational Leadership, 65(2), 28-33. 

Ruedel, K., Nelson, G., Weingarten, Z., & Bailey, T. (n.d.). Data use multi-state spotlight: Using MTSS data to improve graduation rates. National Center for Systemic Improvement. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED591446.pdf 

Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network. (2019). Using an early warning system (EWS) to increase graduation rates of students with disabilities. Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network. https://www.pattan.net/CMSPages/GetAmazonFile.aspx?path=~\pattan\media\publications\2019%20accessible%20pdfs\bse-hune-early-warning-eng-5-2-19wba.pdf&hash=c3e240a7f2f9f9878ff0c62939db3552a321a456fe3a179c037f458e46d89208&ext=.pdf 

Rosalsky, G. (2021). The case for universal Pre-K just got stronger. National Public Radio. https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2021/05/18/997501946/the-case-for-universal-pre-k-just-got-stronger

Sparks, S. D. (2011). Study: Third grade reading predicts later high school graduation. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/study-third-grade-reading-predicts-later-high-school-graduation/2011/04 \\

U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Issue brief: Early warning systems. U.S. Department of Education. https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/high-school/early-warning-systems-brief.pdf 



Wisconsin Graduation Rate Improvement Plan. (n.d.) Risk indicators for not graduating. Wisconsin Graduation Rate Improvement Plan. https://www.wigrip.org/mission.php

For more information, contact Kristen O’Sullivan, (osullivank@vcu.edu), Program Specialist T/TAC at VCU.