Defining the Differences Between OUTCOME-BASED EDUCATION AND MASTERY LEARNING

The premise of outcome-based education is that improving educational programs requires a clear formulation of the goals being sought. Regardless of how schools are formed or reformed, structured or restructured, these goals must center on student outcomes.

With the growing popularity of outcome-based education--featured prominently in the statewide restructuring efforts of Kentucky, Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania, and Texas, for example--has come a great deal of confusion, especially regarding the relationship between outcome-based education and mastery learning.

Though some suggest outcome-based education came into being only 10 or 15 years ago, its guiding principles were elegantly set forth in the 1940s by Ralph W. Tyler in his classic book, Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction.

Tyler emphasized that four fundamental questions must be answered in developing any curriculum and plan of instruction:

* What educational purposes should the school seek to attain?

* What educational experiences can be provided that are likely to accomplish these purposes?

* How can these educational experiences be effectively organized?

* How can we determine whether these purposes are being attained?

Tyler considered the specification of educational purposes synonymous with defining "educational objectives." He defined objectives broadly as conceptions of what we want students to learn and be able to do as a result of learning. In other words, objectives are the building blocks of curriculum and the focus of the first of his four fundamental questions.

Tyler recognized, however, that "in the final analysis, objectives are matters of choice and they must, therefore, be considered value judgments of those responsible for the school."

In the 1960s and early 1970s, Tyler's notions of educational objectives became associated with behavioral approaches to instruction. These approaches were referred to as objective-based education and were popularized because the "back to basics" movement then dominated American education. Under objective-based approaches, complex learning tasks were broken into smaller, more basic skills, which then were arranged in an appropriate sequence for students to learn.

A Labelling Effort

The seemingly mechanistic nature of behavioral approaches soon fell out of favor among mainstream educators, however, and attention turned to defining educational competencies and competency-based education.

Competencies, defined by proponent William Spady in 1977 as "indicators of successful performance in life-role activities," were popular among curriculum development specialists during the mid-1970s. Although Tyler undoubtedly would have considered competencies one type of objective, the term was more palatable to educators concerned with the perceived rigidity of objective-based approaches.

With the advent of competency testing and other forms of criterion-referenced measurement in the latter 1970s, many educators focused on establishing minimum or essential competencies. These were curriculum standards required of all students and were designed to address public demand for accountability. But this focus on minimum competencies left other educators worried that the higher-level capabilities of students would be neglected.

In searching for a label for these, higher-level capabilities, educators considered options. Researchers at the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory advocated goal-based education to focus attention on more advanced learning.

Goals were considered broader in context and more cognitively complex than more narrowly defined objectives or competencies. Unfortunately, the term "goals" suffered from the same linkages to behavioral approaches as did "objectives."

Another group loosely linked to the American Association of School Administrators came upon the word "outcomes." Benjamin S. Bloom first used the word as a subheading in his original description of the mastery learning process in 1968.

To Bloom, outcomes were the desired results from any teaching and learning process. They were the purposes a school sought to attain, as Tyler stated in the first of his four fundamental questions. And because outcomes was untainted by previous use or misuse, it would not be interpreted with the narrowness associated with objectives, competencies, and goals. Hence the label outcome-based education, or OBE, was born in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

Expanding Definitions

Like objectives, competencies, and goals, outcomes are variously defined. The more simple definitions focus exclusively on curriculum and Tyler's first fundamental question, "What educational purposes should the school seek to attain?"

For example, Thomas C. Boysen, Kentucky's commissioner of education, defines an outcome as "what students are expected to demonstrate." Others offer more detailed definitions that also hint at Tyler's fourth question dealing with assessment: "How can we determine whether these purposes are being attained?"

Spady, for example, defines an outcome as "a culminating demonstration of the entire range of learning experiences and capabilities that underlie it in a performance context that directly influences what and how it is carried out."

These definitions demonstrate that outcome-based education focuses primarily on curriculum and, to a lesser extent, on assessment, Tyler's first and fourth fundamental questions. Tyler's second and third questions concerning instruction generally are not addressed in reference to outcome-based education.

Mastery Learning

Most forms of mastery learning today can be traced to the pioneering work of Bloom in the late 1960s. Bloom, a former student of Tyler, recognized the importance of the curriculum issues in Tyler's first fundamental question and the assessment issues in Tyler's fourth question. His earlier work in developing the Taxonomies of Educational Objectives brought increased clarity to educators' efforts in addressing these issues.

In developing mastery learning, however, Bloom focused on the instructional issues involved in Tyler's second and third fundamental questions: "What educational experiences can be provided that are likely to accomplish these purposes?" and "How can these educational experiences be effectively organized?"

Bloom proposed mastery learning as a theory and philosophy about the teaching and learning process that was linked to a set of practical instructional strategies. These strategies were designed to give teachers the means to enable more students to learn effectively and excellently whatever was taught.

Bloom's work on mastery learning stemmed from his research in the mid-1960s on individual differences. He recognized that individual differences among students present a tremendous challenge to teachers, even when students are grouped in grade levels by age.

Bloom was convinced, however, that aspects of teaching and learning could be altered to accommodate these individual differences better so that more students learn excellently and, as a result, attain high levels of achievement.

To determine how this might be achieved, Bloom first considered how teaching and learning take place in typical group-based classroom settings. He observed that most teachers begin their teaching by dividing the material they want students to learn into smaller learning units. These units often are sequentially ordered and correspond, in most cases, to chapters in the textbook used in teaching. Following instruction on the unit, a quiz or test is administered to students covering the unit material.

To the teacher, this test is an evaluation device, used to determine who learned the material well and who did not. Then, based on the results from this test, students are sorted into categories and assigned grades.

To students, however, this test signifies the end of instruction on the unit and the end of the time they need to spend working on the material. It also represents their one and only chance to demonstrate what they learned. After the test is administered and scored, marks are recorded in the grade book, and instruction begins on the next unit where the process is repeated.

When teaching and learning proceed in this manner, only a small number of students usually learns well the material in the unit. In fact, Bloom found only about 20 percent of the students in the class generally learn excellently what the teacher set out to teach. Under these conditions, the distribution of achievement among students at the end of the instructional sequence looks much like a normal bell-shaped curve.

Bloom's Strategy

Seeking a strategy that would produce better results, Bloom drew upon two sources. The first was knowledge of the ideal teaching and learning situation where an excellent tutor is paired with an individual student. Bloom tried to determine what critical elements of one-to-one tutoring might be transferred to group-based instructional settings.

His second source was descriptions of the learning strategies used by academically successful students. Here Bloom sought to identify the activities of high-achieving students in group-based learning environments that distinguish them from their less-successful counterparts.

Bloom saw dividing the material to be learned into units and checking on students' learning with a test at the end of each unit as useful instructional techniques. He believed, however, that the tests used by most teachers did little more than show for whom the initial instruction was or was not appropriate.

If, on the other hand, these checks on learning were accompanied by a feedback and corrective procedure, they could serve as valuable learning tools. Bloom recommended that instead of using these checks solely as evaluation devices marking the end of each unit, teachers use them to diagnose individual learning difficulties (feedback) and prescribe specific remediation procedures (correctives).

This type of feedback and corrective procedure is precisely what takes place when a student works with an excellent tutor. If the student makes an error, the tutor points it out (feedback), then follows up with further explanation and clarification (corrective). Similarly, academically successful students typically follow up the mistakes they make on quizzes and tests, seeking further information and greater understanding so they do not repeat their errors.

With this in mind, Bloom outlined a specific instructional strategy to use this feedback and corrective procedure. He labeled it "mastery learning." By this strategy, the concepts and material students are to learn are organized into instructional units. For most teachers, a unit is composed of the concepts presented in a week or two of instructional time.

Following initial instruction on the unit, students take a quiz or other assessment. But instead of signifying the end of the unit, this assessment is used primarily to give students information or feedback on their learning. To emphasize its new purpose, Bloom suggested it be called a formative assessment, meaning "to inform or provide information." A formative assessment identifies for students what they have learned well and what they need to learn better.

Also included with the formative assessment are explicit suggestions to students as to how they might correct the learning errors identified on the assessment. Because these corrective activities are specific to each item or set of prompts within the assessment, students need to work only on concepts not yet mastered.

In other words, the correctives are individualized. They may point out additional sources of information on a particular topic, such as the page numbers in the course textbook or workbook where the topic is discussed. They may identify alternative learning resources such as other textbooks, learning kits, alternative materials, or computerized instruction. Or they may simply suggest sources of additional practice, such as study centers and independent or guided practice activities.

With the feedback and corrective information gained from a formative assessment, each student has a detailed prescription of what more needs to be done to master the unit's concepts or Learning outcomes.

When students complete their corrective activities, usually after a class period or two, they are administered a second formative assessment that achieves two purposes. First, this second assessment verifies whether the correctives helped students overcome their individual learning difficulties. Secondly (and equally important), it offers students a second chance at success, hence it serves as a powerful motivational device.

In most group-based applications of mastery learning, correctives are accompanied by enrichment or extension activities for students who attain mastery from the initial teaching. Enrichment activities provide these students with exciting opportunities to broaden and expand their learning.

To be effective, the enrichments must be rewarding and challenging. They usually are related to the topic being studied, but need not be tied directly to the content of a particular unit. Therefore, enrichment offers an excellent means of involving students in challenging, higher-level activities such as those designed for the gifted and talented.

Aligning Forces

Although mastery learning is essentially neutral with regard to what is taught, how it is taught, and how resultant learning is assessed, it requires consistency and alignment among these instructional components.

If students are expected to learn higher-level skills, such as those involved in application or analysis, mastery learning stipulates that instructional activities give students opportunities to engage actively in those skills. It also requires that students receive specific feedback on their learning of those skills, coupled with directions on how to correct learning errors. Finally, procedures for assessing students' learning also should be based on those skills.

Through this process of formative assessment, combined with the systematic correction of individual learning difficulties and enrichment to extend the learning of faster learners, Bloom believed all students could receive a more appropriate quality of instruction. Under these more favorable learning conditions, he believed nearly all could learn excellently and truly master the subject material.

As a result, the distribution of achievement among students would be highly skewed, with the vast majority of students clustered at the upper end of the learning scale.

Under mastery learning, grading standards are not changed in any way. The same standards used with the traditional methods are still employed. But under mastery learning conditions, Bloom believed 80 percent or more of the students in a class would reach the same high level of achievement that only about 20 percent do under traditional instruction.

It is important to note that in developing mastery learning, Bloom set aside curriculum issues. He acknowledged the importance of curriculum, of course, and encouraged curriculum developers to focus on more complex, higher-level learning skills. Even though these skills are harder to teach and more difficult to learn, Bloom emphasized that students retain them longer and find these skills more useful in their later lives.

Nevertheless, Bloom saw mastery learning as neutral with regard to curriculum. He believed the instructional strategies of mastery learning would be useful to educators regardless of their curriculum decisions.

Powerful Tandem

Viewed from this historical and theoretical perspective, the distinction between outcome-based education and mastery learning is clear.

Although known by various names, outcome-based education is principally a curriculum reform model with definite implications for assessing student learning. As such, it directs the attention of educators to the first and fourth of Tyler's fundamental questions: "What educational purposes should the school seek to attain?" and "How can we determine whether these purposes are being attained?"

Mastery learning, is, however, principally an instructional process designed to help teachers enhance their teaching procedures so more students learn excellently. As such, it focuses on the second and third of Tyler's fundamental questions: "What educational experiences can be provided that are likely to accomplish these purposes?" and "How can these educational experiences be effectively organized?"

So while outcome-based education and mastery learning are conceptually and theoretically linked, they are clearly distinct. They focus on different educational issues and address different educational concerns. Equally clear, however, is their potential if used in combination.

The finest list of outcomes in the world, even if accompanied by valid assessment tools, represents at best a wish list. It will have little impact on student learning in the absence of effective instructional practices.

At the same time, highly effective instructional strategies must be paired with a thoughtfully planned curriculum. Having students learn well is of little value if what they are learning is trivial or unimportant. The combination of a thoughtful curriculum and effective instructional practices makes possible true improvement in education.

The combination of outcome-based education and mastery learning is likely to prove very powerful. Together they address all four fundamental educational questions set forth by Tyler a half century ago.

COPYRIGHT 1994 American Association of School Administrators
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group