By Robert Cooperman, Training Academy Program Director, Ohio Office of Budget and Management
Mastery learning is an instructional technique developed in the late 1960s as a way to overcome marked differences in student learning outcomes. Starting with the positive idea that all students are capable of learning given the proper amount of time and instructional intervention, mastery learning has been strictly a K-12 phenomenon. One would think training professionals in the adult education arena in the public and private sectors would be attracted to a program that promises high retention, where learners (that is, employees) can perform on the job efficiently and consistently. Yet mastery learning has not caught on beyond K-12. This article, and those that follow, will propose solutions that may make mastery learning more appealing to the corporate and public-sector worlds. To be sure, these solutions will require not only an overhaul of the traditional training program, but a new way of thinking about how much time is invested in employees. In some instances this may mean sacrificing immediate gratification (getting people on the job whether they’re ready for it or not) for the promise of a highly efficient, motivated, and educated workforce.
Learning Aptitude vs. Learning Rate
Central to mastery learning is the replacement of learning aptitude with learning rate as the key measurement for success. At one time, learners were artificially classified as “good learners” and “poor learners,” a label that often stayed with the learner throughout his or her schooling. Mastery learning posits that learners are “fast” or “slow,” and neither carries a negative connotation. This measurement identifies those learners who have caught on to the learning objectives and those who require additional time to do so. In a mastery learning program, those who require additional time get it, while those who do not are provided with enrichment activities to strengthen and challenge their understanding of the material. Additionally, those who need extra time are not simply given more activities until they “get it.” Instead, the lesson is re-presented using a different instructional approach, which may be more appropriate for the learner and pave the way for mastery.
Mastery is the ultimate goal. Whatever the topic or task, the learner is expected—at some point—to master a predetermined set of objectives. Once mastery of one topic is achieved, the learner goes onto the next topic, with the anticipation of mastering it at some point. This pattern continues until all elements of the subject matter are mastered, but this can take some time. So the concept of time becomes a primary consideration, particularly for “slow” learners. This is where a mastery learning program conflicts with the traditional way public and private organizations approach both training and human resources.
Time Transformation
Public and private-sector organizations can transform their concept of time to accommodate a mastery learning program that promises a better workforce.
Traditionally, training in the adult learning world is a fairly speedy process. Employees usually are provided training on the tasks of their job in coursework that may be one or two days long. Often, assessments are used to determine how much the employee retained, but equally often, the results are not followed by an action plan for those who do not master the concepts. The employee then is released to the floor. Should he or she demonstrate a lack of competence, re-training is often the remedy. This means the employee is put through the same course again with the same breakdown of topics, the same instructional technique, and the same rate of failure. These employees also may be in a probationary period where failure to master leads to dismissal from the organization. This is an unfortunate and motivationally stifling pattern, dictated by two things:
- The training team’s ability to work with learners as individuals, providing an instructional technique that varies.
- The organization’s hurry to have productive employees who will not affect profits or efficiency. Obviously, these are not concerns in the K-12 world, where topics can stretch for weeks.
The adoption of a mastery learning program demands that time is given to “slow” learners, with the anticipation that they will master all concepts (recall that one of the tenets of mastery learning is that we all have the potential to learn quite well. but we differ in the amount of time we need to learn). An organization that embraces mastery learning must be prepared to give its employees time to master, a difficult concept especially for revenue-generating organizations. But the gift of time leading to mastery promises a stronger workforce, where employees believe that the organization “invests” in those it chooses to hire. Therefore, organizations that are considering a mastery learning approach have to commit themselves to allowing employees to learn at their own learning rate. This should be a reasonable period of time, perhaps longer than the six-month probationary period common at organizations. If it is not, the amount of learning required of the employee may need to be adjusted.
However, the acceptance of time has little impact if the training unit is not up to the challenge of re-training. It is not sufficient for trainers simply to represent the information, as delivered in class. If the learner does not demonstrate understanding after the first delivery, it seems illogical to assume that repeating that delivery would have a new and positive effect. Substituting different numbers, words, or scenarios but essentially keeping that same training format generally will provide no new enlightenment for the struggling learner. What is needed instead is a change in instructional technique. If, for example, the first round of training was lecture-based, subsequent rounds for the same topic should be anything but. Individual tutoring may be the solution or study guides may help the most. In any event, the training unit must be prepared to have a selection of topical materials to be delivered in various ways to learners who need additional time. In the world of mastery learning, these materials are known as correctives.
In the next article, we will explore how trainers can assess the success or failure of their delivery methods in a mastery learning program.
Robert Cooperman is the Training Academy Program director, Ohio Office of Budget and Management.
