Unsystematic Observations on SuccessMichael Katims

Chicago's mastery learning program takes into account the complexities of reading and the realities of urban classrooms. Its designers say if it doesn't lead to success, it's not mastery learning.

118 EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP

At a recent conference on mastery learning. James Block expressed disappointment in the current use of mastery learning in schools. He said that some of the programs he had observed were not fulfilling the intentions he and Benjamin Bloom had when they were doing basic research on the mastery learning model. He was mainly concerned. Block said, about two aspects: the focus or objectives of the programs, and the means by which mastery is achieved.

Block said he had hoped schools would use mas tery learning in all school subjects to promote affec tive and personal as well as cognitive growth, to enable individuals to be capable and desirous of pur suing learning on their own. Instead, Block found mastery learning being used to teach only the most basic subjects and only the most basic (lower cogni tive order) ideas in those subjects; only a narrow band of skills. The programs were successful, he said, but the mechanistic approach struck him as leading to learning at the cost of feeling, killing the long-term motivation for learning.

These comments surprised me. In the Chicago Public Schools over the last four years, we have been developing, field testing, and implementing city wide a mastery learning instructional system in reading. 1 The system has been particularly well-received in the schools because it helps children develop higher-order cognitive skills of reading comprehension and more general learning strategies, and because it provides tremendous affective benefits to both teachers and pupils as they experience genuine success. Teachers say the program not only promotes development of reading ability, but also facilitates instruction in other subjects like social studies and science. Teachers, pu pils, and administrators speak of rekindled joy in teaching, excitement in learning, and a new sense of confidence and pride as a result of their experience with mastery learning.

Block's comments caused us to reflect upon the differences between our program and those he de scribed as narrow and mechanistic. We Concluded that the Chicago materials are based on a fundamentally different understanding of the theory of mastery learning and of what it requires. This is not to say that we began with unique insights. Rather, we had to accommodate our initial ideas to the demands of the reading curriculum itself and of the realities of urban classrooms.

Complexities of Reading

The first steps in engineering a mastery learning program include specifying a sequence of instruc-

1 The mastery learning project on which this paper is

based has been funded entirely by the Chicago Board of

Education.

tional objectives and developing a corresponding set of criterion-referenced test items for formative and summative evaluation. As we engaged in these activi ties, we saw that reading objectives are considerably different from those in science or mathematics, the subjects of most mastery learning programs and re search. For example, we can specify and measure, in behavioral form, the terms, facts, rules, and processes that constitute the skills of addition. In fact, mastery of addition is synonymous with the ability to do addition problems. In reading, we can logically analyze the task and define a sequential array of necessary subskills. However, we are not so certain that we know how much disparate skills as, for example, "dis criminating long vowel sounds," "identifying the main idea," and "making an inference" come together to produce the complex cognitive skill of reading with understanding.

In addition, when we define reading as behavioral skills, it is highly unlikely that test items related to the isolated objectives are completely valid. For ex ample, most tests for long vowel sounds require the student to match a word with one of four other words which has the same long vowel sound. We encoun tered children who could read all the words on the page, but failed to get one item correct. The test was not measuring long vowel sounds exclusively, but something else as well. We found we could not be preoccupied only with narrow objectives and criterion- referenced tests because we could not be sure of the validity of our assessments. Instead we had to think of mastery of the reading objectives in conjunction with simultaneous development of more general learn ing strategies and problem-solving skills. As a result, we had to concern ourselves not only with the week- to-week mastery of individual objectives, but also with the gradual development of general reading comprehension.

Realities of Urban Classrooms

The biggest influence on the design of our pro gram and ideas about mastery learning, however, was not the reading curriculum, but the classroom en vironment. Our task was to develop a practical mas tery learning instructional system, one that could be easily and inexpensively implemented in all of Chicago's thousands of elementary classrooms. In these classrooms we found teachers without aides and with little or no special equipment serving up to 35 pupils with widely varying reading abilities who could not be expected to be responsible for learning outside of class. The conditions in these classrooms would pose considerable difficulties for any instruc tional plan, but particularly for mastery learning instruction:

1. Classes are a lways heterogenous with respect to possession of the necessary cognitive prerequisites for a given learning unit. Thus units have to be de signed to accommodate the needs of students lacking prerequisites while not inhibiting the progress of more able students.

2. Corrective instruction must take place within the classroom, and it must satisfy the needs of those who need only extra time and practice as well as those who require additional and alternative instruc tion.

3. Since the teacher is usually unassisted, the remediation system has to be designed so that the teacher can reasonably serve three groups working on different activities (enrichment, practice, and remediation). In practice we found that 50 to 60 per cent of the pupils should pass the formative test, and an additional 20 to 30 percent should merely require additional practice.

In the literature on mastery learning both the research reports and the "how to . . ." books the

NOVEMBER 1979 119

largest proportion of space and attention is devoted to the problems of specifying objectives and creating tests. Teachers are instructed to use their current materials and methods for initial instruction. Dis cussions of remediation are vague, with the provision of textbook page numbers for student self-help being the typical concrete suggestion. In the Chicago pro gram, instruction is the focus. Teachers are, of course, provided with formative tests with pre-specified mas tery levels for each instructional unit. But more im portant, they are provided with instructional ma terials: detailed and structured teaching activities for presenting the instructional narrative and learning cues; corresponding learning activities that allow the pupils to practice the skills in the formats in which they will be evaluated; and self-contained, corrective, instructional exercises that provide alternative learn ing cues and additional practice opportunities.

Learning from Experience

We didn't begin our work with this design in mind. In fact we started, like most mastery learning projects, by attempting to create formative tests and instructional correctives that would be used in con junction with a commercially-published textbook. The problem was that the method didn't work; teachers had trouble organizing materials into sequences of instructional activities; too many pupils failed the formative tests; and remediations became multiple, unwieldy, and overly time-consuming. As a result, we began again, developing and simultaneously field

testing our own instructional materials. We used Bloom's general descriptions of successful mastery learning instruction as our field test criteria. If a given sequence of instructional activities did not lead 60 to 80 percent of the pupils to mastery, we modified it. If a learning unit proved to be too long, we split it up. If a remediation did not lead pupils to mastery, we redesigned it. These practices are in sharp contrast to the widespread method reported by Terwilliger (1979) of simply lowering the mastery level in order to allow more students to attain mastery.

Success was our criterion. Successful mastery learning instruction is supposed to lead to successful learning outcomes. When that doesn't happen, it is not mastery learning, even if the teacher has used a diagnostic test and attempted corrective instruction. Therefore, we used the formative test data to assess the effectiveness of the instructional activities we had provided, modifying them until we obtained the ex pected results. In this way, we took responsibility for demonstrating the validity of mastery learning theory to both teachers and pupils, as well as to ourselves.

The basic assumption of mastery learning that all children can learn is not a truth in the school experience of most teachers and pupils. They are not predisposed to believe. However, when our pilot classrooms began to experience successful learning, when both teachers and pupils perceived and believed the success, a transformation occurred. Teachers re ported that classroom disruptions decreased as pupils more eagerly and actively participated in the learning activities. Pupils "pushed" teachers, mastering units

The Chicago Plan: Mastery Learning in the Chicago Public Schools

It has frequently been said that education is an enterprise dominated by fads. Before we can really integrate a set of principles and procedures into our instructional system, a new set of ideas captures our imagination. "Mastery learning" could be one such vogue. However, the difference between a fad and an effective instructional inno vation is not a function of the underlying ideas, but rather is related to the extent to which the school system is committed to the ideas. Over the last few years, we in Chicago have been develop ing and implementing a comprehensive reading program based on the ideas of mastery learning. This program involves the entire school system, from board chambers to classroom, in a unified program of curriculum, instruction, evaluation, and management.

1. A Continuous-Progress Curriculum. The foundation of the program is the curriculum: a continuous sequence of 1,400 instructional objec

tives. The Curriculum Guides in reading define the skills from kindergarten through the end of elementary school in four strands: word attack, study skills, comprehension, and literature. The objectives are grouped into 13 different reading levels, and objectives are hierarchically sequenced between levels. These instructional levels of the curriculum serve as the organizational basis for instruction because schools are ungraded, and stu dents are grouped homogeneously by age and reading level.

2. Criterion-Referenced Testing Program. Of the total sequence of objectives, 273 have been identified as "key" or terminal objectives, and we have developed a set of criterion-referenced tests to evaluate mastery of these specific objec tives. In every classroom in the city, pupils demon strate successful learning by performing at or above pre-specified mastery levels (usually 80 percent) on these individual tests. Pupils must

120 EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP

far faster than expected, and teachers began to indi cate acceptance of the basic premise of mastery learn ing.

Observations

What we observed were the effects of success: changes in attitude and behavior exhibited by both teachers and pupils as they experienced successful teaching and learning. We have come to believe that this experiencing of success is the basic phenomenon of mastery learning. The formative tests and instruc tional correctives are just some of the tools we use to achieve it. In the Chicago reading program, we have welded together a variety of features and elements into a single instructional package designed to build success into the learning unit. We would like to share some rather unsystematic observations about specific features of our program that illustrate how we pro mote success and how we help teachers and pupils be aware of it.

1. Instructional format: The basic design of the instructional activities is based on the simplest in terpretation of Bloom's "cues" and "participation." In our instructional units, there is a sequence of from two to four instructional activities, each including a structured teaching presentation and an accompany ing worksheet for practice. These differ from basal reader activities and workbooks primarily in the sequencing and in the regular alternation of teaching and practice activities. We have observed a number of advantages to this format. By breaking the instruc

tional sequence into discrete activities, we give the teacher more accurate control of pace and progress. Activities can be lengthened or shortened as the teacher deems appropriate, and progress to the next activity occurs only when the teacher is satisfied that pupils have mastered the current activity. Further more, both teachers and pupils respond to the very perceptible progress from activity to activity. Finally, the connection of presentation to worksheet to fol lowing presentation seems to increase the effective time on task in both activities.

2. Instructional sequencing: The most difficult problem we confronted was the basic problem of instruction: the lack of cognitive prerequisites. No matter how homogeneously the class is grouped, some pupils in the group always seem to lack some prerequisites to the learning unit. And while diag nosing and remediating individual deficiencies is im practical, ignoring them is foolhardy.

Our solution was to design learning units that begin with activities requiring few prerequisites. As explained in Figure 1, these are activities that involve little or no reading, that are teacher directed and un- timed, that have simple, concrete content, and that provide for structured response (such as multiple choice questions).

This arrangement of discrete activities gradually ascending in difficulty has tremendous benefits. Both pupils and teachers can observe visible progress as the class moves through the activities; each one is slightly different and each represents a reasonably increased demand over the previous exercise. The

show mastery on at least 80 percent of the tests within a reading level in order to progress to subsequent levels.

3. Administrative Goals. Many school sys tems are implementing instructional management systems to help administrators pace and monitor pupil progress. In Chicago, we have adopted the "Plan for Improvement in Reading," which differs from many other plans in that it is based on the objectives of the reading curriculum and is an integral part of the instructional program. Indi vidual goals have been established in terms of the numbers of objectives mastered in each school term for each of the 13 reading levels. Teachers record pupil mastery of objectives on a goal chart, and they review these bi-weekly with principals. In this way, individual and classroom problems can be identified and remediated before instruc tional time is lost. Similarly, building goals have been established in terms of the numbers of

Joseph P. Harmon, assisted by Michael Katims

pupils who are reading "on level," and progress toward these goals is reviewed regularly by the district administrator.

4. Mastery Learning Instructional Materials.

In order to help teachers and pupils reach the learning goals that have been established, we have been developing, testing, and implementing our own mastery learning instructional system, based specifically on our continuum of objectives. This system consists of a series of "learning packets" that includes all the materials necessary for con ducting mastery learning instruction: structured teaching activities, corresponding pupil practice activities, formative tests to identify those who need further work on the objectives, and self- contained, corrective instructional exercises for those who fail to reach mastery on the initial effort. In addition, we have developed TU-READ tutorial materials to provide still further instruc tion and practice for those who require it. With

NOVEMBER 1979 121

instructional supports help the pupil get involved in the instruction, after which they are gradually with drawn as the pupil no longer needs them.

3. Learning strategies: One of the features of our curriculum that helps promote achievement is that in addition to teaching reading skills, our units teach specific learning strategies. As we observed pupils working with the criterion-referenced tests in read ing, we saw that the tests required not only language skills, but cognitive skills as well. So we began to teach specific strategies for organizing memory, fa cilitating comprehension, and approaching problems. For younger pupils, these strategies and procedures are modeled in the instructional presentation. In the materials for upper elementary pupils, they are spe cifically taught. The instruction focuses explicitly on the higher cognitive skills, promoting development of what Bloom calls "learning to learn." Pupils are taught how to think about the problem and thus gain confidence to confront new learning situations.

4. The formative test: We found that the most critical aspect of the formative test is that it be per ceived and accepted by teachers and pupils as fair. When the instructional sequence had prepared stu

dents adequately for the test, and when the test results corresponded to the shared expectations of the class, the formative test was perceived as a non-

Figure 1 : Factors Associated with Degree of Prerequisite Learning Required for an Activity*

Few Prerequisites Required

Simple, Tea concrete dire content

cher No cted Re<

wo

Sin idlng res

jctured Unl >onse

d multiple choice

phrase/ sh< sentence ans

paragraph

longer selection

l

rt wer

Imed

Complex, Inde- Connected Open Timed abstract pendent discourse response content

Many Prerequisites Required

Adapted from Sloll (1980)

threatening feedback tool. Pupils actually asked to take it to find out if they had mastered the objectives,

Hannon (continued)

this instructional system, teachers are able to diagnose and correct learning errors as they occur, thereby helping the large majority of their pupils to achieve mastery.

5. Competency-Based Promotion Policy. In an effort to ensure that entering high school stu dents are prepared for secondary level instruction, many school systems are attempting to upgrade their promotion standards. However, because the criteria are usually stated in terms of norm- referenced test scores, independent of the instruc tional program, these efforts are often seen as punitive, designed to exclude certain groups of students from high school. In Chicago, promotion to high school has been linked to progress through the matrix of reading objectives. The promotion policy specifies that pupils who have not mastered 80 percent of the objectives in each of the 13 reading levels shall be retained in elementary school for an additional year. Students who have not reached the graduation criteria after their eighth year are allowed to attend a mastery learn ing summer reading review. But in order to go on to high school, students must demonstrate an acceptable level of mastery on a selection of the criterion-referenced tests. Thus, the Chicago pro motion policy is an integral part of the reading program, extending the basic principles of mas

tery learning by providing additional instruction and learning lime to those pupils who need it.

It is far too soon to state that we have "solved" the reading problem in Chicago. Though our test scores have risen continuously in each of the last four years, our city norms are still well below national norms, and many of our children are reading one or two years below level. But this is to be expected. The continuous progress/ mastery learning program has not as yet been fully implemented. The instructional materials will not be completed for all reading levels until a year from now, and other components, such as the record keeping system, are still being revised to meet the needs of teachers and principals.

What can be stated unequivocally is that the Chicago Public Schools are committed to the philosophy and the techniques of mastery learn ing. We believe that a ll children can learn and that it is our responsibility to help them to do so. Furthermore we believe that the techniques of mastery learning, particularly the use of instruc tional feedback and correctives, can help us fulfill our responsibility and to consolidate the many ad ministrative and instructional aspects of schooling into a single, comprehensive program that mobil izes administrators, teachers, and pupils towards a common goal: successful learning achievement.

Joseph P. Hannon is Superintendent of Schools, Chicago Public Schools.

122 EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP

and when they failed to attain mastery, they did the -emediation activity eagerly so they could pass the next time. On the other hand, if the test wasn't hard enough, or if it was too hard because the instruction was inadequate, we observed typical negative reac tions to the test. We believe that appropriate response to the formative test can be used by developers as primary evidence that successful mastery learning is occurring.

5. Corrective instruction: The alternative in structional activity provided for pupils who fail to attain mastery is the most critical component in de velopment of belief in the possibilities of mastery learning. When additional instruction and practice help pupils to succeed on the test they just recently failed, the prospect of eliminating failure becomes very real. It is essential, therefore, that the remedial exercises be effective. The only way to assure this effectiveness is to field test the activities, modifying them until they produce the desired effects.

In the Chicago mastery learning program, these activities are self-contained exercises including addi tional instruction, additional opportunities to prac tice, and items equivalent to those on the formative tests. Some pupils require little more than extra time and practice; they generally work their way through the activity independently. The remaining pupils are the ones who really require additional instruction and the teacher's help. They can be identified by their lack of progress on the corrective instruction, and the teacher can give them extra help in an almost tutorial manner. Another advantage to this structured format is that it allows us to use as peer tutors those pupils who have demonstrated mastery on the formative test. The corrective activities usually begin with a simpli fied version of the concept or skills being taught. In addition, more use is made of pictorial and concrete modes of instruction. Thus, we have brought together a number of different elements that combine to pro duce manageable and effective remedial instruction. We believe that solving this problem is the key to genuine mastery learning instruction.

A Summer Success Story

The theme that runs through the preceding dis cussion is one of success: to be actively engaged in mastery learning instruction, teachers and pupils must experience success. They must perceive progress and believe in the achievement. We emphasize this strongly because we believe the effects of success can be so powerful that they eliminate the effects of years of failure. Some evidence for this was apparent in the summer school of 1978.

At the beginning of the 1977-78 school year, the Chicago Board of Education adopted a competency-

based promotion policy. Eighth graders were told that if they had not mastered at least 80 percent of the 273 skills tested in the reading program, they would not be promoted to high school. At the conclusion of the school year, 15,000 of the 45,000 eighth graders were in fact retained. These youngsters, who ranged from one to four years behind in reading achievement, were told they could go to high school only if they success fully completed an intensive summer review. The seven-week program consisted of 46 hours of mastery learning instruction.

Here were pupils who had experienced failure throughout much of their learning experience. They had been told for eight years that their progress was inadequate, so how could they expect to succeed now? And yet, as pupils progressed through the first units, as they started successfully achieving new skills, we saw the effects of mastery learning on a citywide sc?le. A headline in the Chicago Sun-Times (August 6, 1978) read, "Summer Success Story Kids Here Begging to Read." Begging to read? The story con tinued, "Pupils who had been in over their heads during the regular school year were begging for tests and vying to read aloud." One pupil, who had started at the fifth-grade reading level, but managed to gradu ate, was quoted as asking, "Has the Board of Educa tion said that we can use these books next year? You learn so much from one book."

Something special was happening, and that some thing was mastery learning. Surely many of these children still lacked many of the basic skills of read ing; to really "catch up" they would have to devote many more hours to studying. But how much more likely it was that some would put in the extra time and effort knowing they could succeed.

References

Stoll, L. "A Model for Sequencing Skills Instruction." Paper prepared for the annual meeting of the International Reading Association, St. Louis, Missouri, May 1980.

Terwilliger, James. "An Examination of the Concept of Mastery." Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco,

California, April 1979.

Michael Katims is Coordina tor of Mastery Learning Pro gram Development, Depart ment of Curriculum, Chicago Public Schools, Chicago, llli-

NOVEMBER 1979 123

Copyright © 1979 by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. All rights reserved.