Mastery Learning - Criticism

Criticism

In general, mastery learning programs have been shown to lead to higher achievement in all students as compared to more traditional forms of teaching (Anderson, 2000; Gusky & Gates, 1986). Despite the empirical evidence, many mastery programs in schools have been replaced by more traditional forms of instruction due to the level of commitment required by the teacher and the difficulty in managing the classroom when each student is following an individual course of learning (Anderson, 2000; Grittner, 1975). Despite the conclusive evidence that an appropriately instituted mastery approach to instruction yields improvement in student achievement, there is a strong movement against it. Critics of mastery learning often point to time constraints as a flaw in the approach. Those that favor breadth of knowledge over depth of knowledge may feel that it is more important to “cover” a lot of material with little detail rather than focus more energy on ensuring that all students achieve learning goals. Many teachers are hesitant to institute a mastery learning approach in their classroom because of fears that they may get behind in their lessons. Some critics argue that allowing some students extra time to complete their work is unfair. They argue that differentiated instruction is inherently unfair because the students who receive extra feedback and time are somehow given an advantage over the students who master the objectives the first time. Most of this criticism stems from a misunderstanding of Bloom’s approach. In Bloom’s ideal classroom, the institution of a mastery learning approach would eventually lead to a drastic decline in the variation of student achievement. Students who require more correctives initially would “gain direct evidence of the personal benefits the process offers” (Guskey 2007). Thus they eventually come to employ these varying strategies and techniques on their own. As the gap in student achievement shrinks, more time will be devoted to enrichment activities for all students than corrective activities (Guskey 2007).