User Name:

Password:
Welcome Guest
Journals Home > Journal Of Advanced Academics > Volume 19 |  Issue 1 > Article Abstract
 

Abstract

Back to TOC
Reference
X

  • Ainsworth, L., & Viegut, D. (2006). Common formative assessments: How to connect standards-based instruction and assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
  • Anania, J. (1981). The effects of quality of instruction on the cognitive and affective learning of students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, Chicago.
  • Anania, J. (1983). The influence of instructional conditions on student learning and achievement. Evaluation in Education: An International Review Series, 7(1), 1–92.
  • Anderson, S., Barrett, C., Huston, M., Lay, L., Myr, G., Sexton, D., et al. (1992). A mastery learning experiment (Technical Report). Yale, MI: Yale Public Schools.
  • Arlin, M. N. (1973). Rate and rate variance trends under mastery learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, Chicago.
  • Arredondo, D. E., & Block, J. H. (1990). Recognizing the connections between thinking skills and mastery learning. Educational Leadership, 47(5), 4–10.
  • Barton, P. E. (2003). Parsing the achievement gap: Baselines for tracking progress (Policy Information Report). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
  • Blakemore, C. L. (1992). Comparison of students taught basketball skills using mastery and nonmastery learning methods. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 11, 235–247.
  • Block, J. H. (Ed.). (1971). Mastery learning: Theory and practice. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
  • Block, J. H. (Ed.). (1974). Schools, society and mastery learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
  • Block, J. H. (1983). Learning rates and mastery learning. Outcomes, 2(3), 18–23.
  • Block, J. H., & Anderson, L. W. (1975). Mastery learning in classroom instruction. New York: MacMillan.
  • Block, J. H., & Burns, R. B. (1976). Mastery learning. In L. S. Shulman (Ed.), Review of research in education Vol. 4 (pp. 3–49). Itasca, IL: Peacock.
  • Bloom, B. S. (1964). Stability and change in human characteristics. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Bloom, B. S. (1968). Learning for mastery. Evaluation Comment, 1(2), 1–12. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED053419).
  • Bloom, B. S. (1971a). Mastery learning. In J. H. Block (Ed.), Mastery learning: Theory and practice (pp. 47–63). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
  • Bloom, B. S. (1971b). Individual differences in school achievement: A vanishing point? Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappan International.
  • Bloom, B. S. (1976). Human characteristics and school learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Bloom, B. S. (1977). Favorable learning conditions for all. Teacher, 95(3), 22–28.
  • Bloom, B. S. (1978). New views of the learner: Implications for instruction and curriculum. Educational Leadership, 35, 563–576.
  • Bloom, B. S. (1984a). The 2 sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Researcher, 13(6), 4–16.
  • Bloom, B. S. (1984b). The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Leadership, 41(8), 4–17.
  • Bloom, B. S. (1988). Helping all children learn in elementary school and beyond. Principal, 67(4), 12–17.
  • Bloom, B. S., Englehart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, Handbook 1: The cognitive domain. New York: McKay.
  • Bloom, B. S., Hastings, J. T., & Madaus, G. (1971). Handbook on formative and summative evaluation of student learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Burke, A. J. (1983). Students’ potential for learning contrasted under tutorial and group approaches to instruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, Chicago.
  • Clark, C. R., Guskey, T. R., & Benninga, J. S. (1983). The effectiveness of mastery learning strategies in undergraduate education courses. Journal of Educational Research, 76,210–214.
  • Dollard, J., & Miller, N. E. (1950). Personality and psychotherapy. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 (EOA), Pub. L. No. 88-452, § 42, 78 Stat. 508.
  • Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), Pub. L. No. 89-10, § 20, 79 Stat. 77.
  • Fitzpatrick, K. A. (1985, April). Group-based mastery learning: A Robin Hood approach to instruction? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
  • Guskey, T. R. (1983). Clarifying time related issues. Outcomes, 3(1), 5–7.
  • Guskey, T. R. (1987). Rethinking mastery learning reconsidered. Review of Educational Research, 57, 225–229.
  • Guskey, T. R. (1989). Every teacher can be the best. Vocational Education Journal, 64(1), 20–22.
  • Guskey, T. R. (1997). Implementing mastery learning (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
  • Guskey, T. R. (2001). Mastery learning. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of social and behavioral sciences (pp. 9372–9377). Oxford, England: Elsevier Science Ltd.
  • Guskey, T. R. (Ed.). (2006). Benjamin S. Bloom: Portraits of an educator. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
  • Guskey, T. R., & Pigott, T. D. (1988). Research on group-based mastery learning programs: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Research, 81, 197–216.
  • Hymel, G. M., & Dyke, W. E. (1993, April). The internationalization of Bloom’s learning for mastery: A 25-year retrospective-prospective view. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.
  • Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. J. (1994). The nuts & bolts of cooperative learning. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
  • Kozlovsky, J. D. (1990). Integrating thinking skills and mastery learning in Baltimore County. Educational Leadership, 47(5), 6.
  • Kulik, C. C., Kulik, J. A., & Bangert-Drowns, R. L. (1990). Effectiveness of mastery learning programs: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 60, 265–299.
  • Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1989). Meta-analysis in education. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 221–340.
  • Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  • Mevarech, Z. R., & Werner, S. (1985). Are mastery learning strategies beneficial for developing problem solving skills? Higher Education, 14, 425–432.
  • Morrison, H. C. (1926). The practice of teaching in the secondary school. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Nakajima, A. (2006). A powerful influence on Japanese education. In T. R. Guskey (Ed.), Benjamin S. Bloom: Portraits of an educator (pp. 109–111). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author. Retrieved May 13, 2007, from http://standards.nctm.org/document.
  • No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115 Stat. 1425.
  • Reezigt, B. J., & Weide, M. G. (1990). The effects of group-based mastery learning on language and arithmetic achievement and attitudes in primary education in the Netherlands. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston.
  • Reezigt, G. J., & Weide, M. G. (1992, April). Mastery learning and instructional effectiveness. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
  • Rothstein, R. (2004). A wider lens on the Black-White achievement gap. Phi Delta Kappan, 86, 104–110.
  • Smith, J. K., Smith, L. F., & DeLisi, R. (2001). Natural classroom assessment: Designing seamless instruction & assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
  • Stiggins, R. (2008). Student-involved assessment for learning (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill, Prentice Hall.
  • Tomlinson, C. A. (2003). Fulfilling the promise of the differentiated classroom: Strategies and tools for responsive teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  • Waddington, T. (1995, April). Why mastery matters. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
  • Walberg, H. J. (1986). Syntheses of research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 214–229). New York: Macmillan.
  • Washburne, C. W. (1922). Educational measurements as a key to individualizing instruction and promotions. Journal of Educational Research, 5, 195–206.
  • Whiting, B., & Render, G. F. (1987). Cognitive and affective outcomes of mastery learning: A review of sixteen semesters. The Clearing House, 60, 276–280.
  • Whiting, B., Van Burgh, J. W., & Render, G. F. (1995, April). Mastery learning in the classroom. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
  • Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  • Wu, W. Y. (1994, April). Mastery learning in Hong Kong: Challenges and prospects. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
  • Yildiran, G. (2006). Multicultural applications of mastery learning. Istanbul, Turkey: Faculty of Education, Bogazici University.
Fields marked with an asterisk * are mandatory.
 

Your Name:*
 

Your Email:*
 

Friend's Name:*
 

Friend's Email:*
 

Message:
 

 
Send CC to self
 

 
 

Bookmark
X
  • Volume 19
  •  Issue 1
  • Publication Date: Fall 2007



Closing Achievement Gaps: Revisiting Benjamin S. Bloom’s “Learning for Mastery”

Thomas R. Guskey

The problem of achievement gaps among different subgroups of students has been evident in education for many years. This manuscript revisits the work of renowned educator Benjamin S. Bloom, who saw reducing gaps in the achievement of various groups of students as a simple problem of reducing variation in student learning outcomes. Bloom observed that teaching all students in the same way and giving all the same time to learn—that is, providing little variation in the instruction—typically results in great variation in student learning. Students for whom the instructional methods and amount of time are appropriate learn well, and those for whom the methods and time are less appropriate learn less well. Bloom believed that all students could be helped to reach a high criterion of learning if both the instructional methods and time were varied to better match students’ individual learning needs. In other words, to reduce variation in the achievement of diverse groups of students and have all students learn well, Bloom argued that educators and teachers must increase variation in instructional approaches and learning time. Bloom labeled the strategy to accomplish this instructional variation and differentiation mastery learning. Research evidence shows that the positive effects of mastery learning are not limited to cognitive or achievement outcomes. The process also yields improvements in students’ confidence in learning situations, school attendance rates, involvement in class sessions, attitudes toward learning, and a variety of other affective measures.


ShoppingCart Summary

Shopping
Your cart is empty.