Learning for Mastery

Almost forty years after the article by Bloom (1968) was published, many students are still failing in school. In some ways, the education system has “progressed”. Schools have moved away from the grading practices of that era. Many research studies in academic areas, especially in special education, focus on curriculum modification, curriculum-based measurement and peer-tutoring (Deno, 2003; DuPaul, Ervin, Hook, & McGoey, 1998;Umbreit, Lane, & Dejud, 2004). Many of these were mentioned by Bloom as variables for mastery learning. With the amount of money spent on educational research and improving instruction in school, it is sad that many students continue to fail.

Schools in this decade are facing a new challenge: school violence and problem behaviors. Current research studies focus on school-wide positive behavior support (SWPBS) and response to intervention (RTI) to intervene with the majority of students in school in terms of behavior and academic achievement respectively. SWPBS has shown to be effective in reducing office discipline referrals, and in some cases, improving academic performance in schools (Nelson, Martella, & Marchand-Martella, 2002). Bloom stated that the key to mastery is time, and with the advent of NCLB, that is one thing that students and schools do not have enough.

References

Bloom, B. (1968). Learning for mastery. Evaluation Comment, 1, 1-11.

Deno, S.L. (2003). Curriculum-based measures: Development and perspectives. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 28, 3-12.

DuPaul, G.J., Ervin, R.A., Hook, C.L., & McGoey, K. (1998). Peer tutoring for children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: Effects on classroom behavior and academic performance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, 579-592.

Nelson, J.R., Martella, R.M., & Marchand-Martella, N. (2002). Maximizing student learning. The effects of a comprehensive school-based program for preventing problem behaviors. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 10, 136-148.