Day: July 11, 2019

I have been a supporter of mastery learning since I first read Bloom, Keller, and others in the 1970s. There are many forms of personalization and mastery approaches are but one. Mastery attempts to deal with the issue of individual differences in existing knowledge and rate of learning. Its perspective on learner aptitude argues aptitude should be conceptualized as how long it takes to learn something rather than how much a student can learn in the time provided which is what traditional education requires. For those who could go faster (bored) and those who have been ignored as a class of students move on (left behind), a mastery approach proposes that instruction should address the present situation of each student.

When such ideas were proposed and demonstrated in the ’70s, I would argue that the means to deliver individualized approaches were impractical in most institutions. With technology, the opportunities for practical implementation have changed.

Personalization of student learning has been popularized in recent years. Like so many terms used in education, the meaning of personalization is ambiguous. Personalization could apply to mastery learning, but also to addressing student personal interests. I am an advocate of both concepts. Others are not. For many, student-centered implies student personal interests, but not differences in rate of learning and existing background. I guess the assumption is that somehow differences in learner aptitude and background are being met in traditional classrooms with traditional group-focused approaches. The reality argues otherwise. Many students simply have no realistic chance of dealing with the learning expectations they face.

I just read this commentary on the mastery version of personalization in the New Yorker (https://www.newyorker.com/news/dispatch/the-messy-reality-of-personalized-learning). I also read some of the reactions from pundits who object to the use of technology in this way. I see this as a convoluted problem and I agree with many of the points identified in the New Yorker article. It has beens suggested that “you are doing it wrong” is too often used by tech advocates when addressing complaints about technology. I would use this argument here. If the teacher uses individualized “mastery learning time” to sit at his/her desk and fill out necessary forms or plan lessons for other class sessions, he/she is doing it wrong.

I like to think of mastery approaches as an adaptive textbook presenting content and experiences at the pace suited to the individual. The classroom teacher does not ignore the class just because a traditional textbook is in use and certainly should not ignore students when the computer or laptop is individualizing content and task presentations. The New Yorker article does a nice job of explaining how individualization has become confounded with private schooling and the funding priorities of tech companies. Again, teachers and administrators are not helpless. There are plenty of “free” individualization options available for classroom use (e.g., Kahn Academy) and there is no requirement that schools must take money from Apple, Google, or whatever company happens to be the scapegoat of the moment.

I admit to being frustrated by the lack of individualization in public schools. Your tech integration specialists/coaches/facilitators/etc. should be there to help.

I have written more about mastery approaches elsewhere.