완전학습 (Mastery Learning)

John B. Carroll Benjamin Bloom

 

완전학습 이론은 학습자들에게 학습에 적합한 환경을 조성해 주면 모든 학습자들이 주어진 학습 목표를 성취할 수 있다는 단순한 신념으로부터 출발한다. 이는 John B. Carroll이 1963년 학교학습모형(A Model of School Learning)이라는 글을 통해 기존의 지능이론 중심의 학습 방법(모든 학생들에게 똑 같은 학습 시간을 제공하고 능력의 차이에 초점을 맞추는 수업)을 비판하고 새로운 접근을 시도하면서 주목을 받기 시작한다.

 

 

완전학습은 수업의 초점이 같은 학습 제재를 배울 때 나타나는 학습자들의 능력 차이에 따라 요구되는 학습시간에 맞추어야 한다는 것을 보여준다.

 

이와 같은 접근은 당시에는 커다란 충격이었다. 이전까지는 학생들의 학습 결과에 대한 책임을 학생들의 지적 능력에 돌렸지만, 이제는 교사에게 책임이 돌려졌다. 즉, 학생들이 학습목표에 도달하지 못하는 원인이 학생들의 능력부족이 아니라 교사가 제공하는 학습환경으로 옮아갔다. 학생들에게 충분한 학습 시간을 제공하고 적절한 학습 전략을 활용함으로써 모든 학생들이 같은 수준의 학습을 할 수 있게 해야한다는 하나의 도전으로 받아들여졌다(Levine, 1985; Bloom, 1981).

완전학습의 특성은

 

The key elements in matery learning are: (1) clearly specifying what is to be learned and how it will be evaluated, (2) allowing students to learn at their own pace, (3) assessing student progress and providing appropriate feedback or remediation, and (4) testing that final learning critierion has been achieved.

 

"The principal defining characteristic of mastery learning methods is the establishment of a criterion level of performance held to represent "mastery" of a given skill or concept, frequent assessment of student progress toward the mastery criterion, and provision of corrective instruction to enable students who do not initially meet the mastery criterion to do so on later parallel assessment (see Bloom, 1976; Block & Anderson, 1975). Bloom (1976) also includes an emphasis on appropriate use of such instructional variables as cues, participation, feedback, and reinforcement as elements of mastery learning, but these are not uniquely defining characteristics; rather, what defines mastery learning approaches is the organization of time and resources to ensure that most students are able to master instructional objectives."

 

Mastery learning has been widely applied in schools and training settings, and research shows that it can improve instructional effectiveness (e.g., Block, Efthim & Burns, 1989; Slavin, 1987). On the other hand, there are some theoretical and practical weaknesses including the fact that people do differ in ability and tend to reach different levels of achievement (see Cox & Dunn, 1979). Furthermore, mastery learning programs tend to require considerable amounts of time and effort to implement which most teachers and schools are not prepared to expend.



Source: "Mastery Learning Reconsidered", Robert E. Slavin, Center for Research on Elementary and Middle Schools, Johns Hopkins University, 1987, p. 1.

 

Bloom outlines Mastery Learning strategies as follows:

  • The content is divided into small learning units comprising one to two weeks of instructional time.
  • After the material from the unit is presented, a FORMATIVE TEST is administered to determine each student's progress and to identify areas in which more instruction is needed. A high level of performance is required (usually 85-90%) on the formative test for the student to move directly into ENRICHMENT activities.
  • Students who have not mastered the material are engaged in CORRECTIVE instruction. Students must be provided with alternative learning methods such as additional lectures, group instruction, different textbooks, study guides, or worksheets.
  • At the end of a series of units, the teacher evaluates the final competence of students by giving a SUMMATIVE TEST covering the objectives of the unit. If Mastery Learning is successful, almost all students should attain a high score on the examination.

목적: "...two central goals of mastery learning, particularly as explicated by Bloom (1976): To reduce the variation in student achievement and to reduce or eliminate any correlation between aptitude and achievement. Since all students must achieve at a high level on the subtraction objective but students who achieve the criterion early cannot go on to new material, there is a ceiling effect built in to the procedure which will inherently cause variation among students to be small and correspondingly reduce the correlation between mathematics aptitude and subtraction performance. In fact, if we set the mastery criterion at 100% and repeated the formative test-corrective instruction cycle until all students achieved this criterion, then the variance on the subtraction test would be zero, as would the correlation between aptitude and achievement"."

Source: "Mastery Learning Reconsidered", Robert E. Slavin, Center for Research on Elementary and Middle Schools, Johns Hopkins University, 1987, p. 5.

 The term Mastery Learning refers to a large and diverse category of instructional methods.  The principal defining characteristic of mastery learning is the establishment of a criterion level of performance hold to represent "mastery" if a given skill or concept, frequent assessment of student progress toward the mastery criterion, and provision of corrective instruction to enable students who do initally meet the mastery criterion to do so on later parallel assessments
  • Bloom (1976) also includes an emphasis on appropriate use of such instructional variables as cues, participation, feedback, and reinforcement as elements of mastery learning, but these are not uniquely definining characteristics; rather, what defines mastery learning approaches is the organization of time and resources to ensure that most students are able to master instructional objectives.
  • There are three primary forms of mastery learning
    • Personalized Systems of Instruction (PSI) or the Keller Plan (Keller, 1968)
      • Used primarily at the postsecondary level
      • Unit objectives are established for a course of study and tests are developed for each.  Students may take the test as many times as they wish until they achieve a passing score.
      • To do this, students typically work on self-instructional materials and/or work with peer to learn the course content, and teachers may give lectures more to supplement than to guide the learning process.
    • Continuous Process
      • Students workk on individualized units entirely at their own rate
      • Differ from other individualized models only in that they establish mastery criteria for unit tests and provide corrective activities for students who do not meet these criteria the first time.
    • Group-Based Mastery Learning or Learning for Mastery
      • Most commonly used form of mastery learning in elementary and secondary schools
      • Teacher instructs entire class at one pace.  At the end of each unit of instruction a "formative test" is given, covering the unit's content.
      • A mastery criterion, usually in the range of 8--90% correct, is established for this test.  Any student who does not achieve mastery is given corrective instruction in the form of tutoring by teacher or students.  The feedback should be presented differently than the original instruction.
      • All students who achieve mastery receive an A regardless of how many times it takes them to pass
  • Two centrals goals of mastery learning (Bloom, 1976)
    • to reduce variation in student achievement
    • to or eliminate any correlation between aptitude and achievement
  • Potential problems with mastery learning:
    • If some learners take longer to achieve mastery than others, one of two things happen. Either corrective instruction must be given outside of regular class time, or students who achieve mastery early on will have to spend considerable amount of time waiting for their classmates to catch up.  Extra tutoring outside class is expensive

Taxonomy of Objectives
The focus is on developing student problem-solving abilities and higher-order thinking skills. The "lower-level" objectives of memorization and recall of facts are de-emphasized. The Taxonomy hierarchy:
Knowledge - recall of info
Comprehension - organization and selection of relevant facts and ideas
Application - use of facts, principles in a different situation
Analysis - outlining, comparing, classifying ideas
Synthesis - creating something new from existing ideas
Evaluation - judging an idea regarding validity, value, etc.

Equal Ability: "While serving on a panel with Benjamin Bloom and listening to his lecture on the concept of mastery learning, I began to feel uneasy. The beliefs that I had formed during 11 years as a school teacher, school principal, and university professor were being seriously challenged".

"Mastery learning is built on the assumption that the majority of children can become equal in their ability to learn standard school tasks...Bloom...believes that...95 percent of the population are equally capable of learning".

"What does research indicate about the hypothesis that students are the same? Much of the developmental research by Piaget, Bruner and others provides evidence that students progress through stages of cognitive, language, social, moral, artistic and physical stages at different rates...Therefore, there is much research that would refute Bloom's assertion that 95 percent of children have nearly the same potentiality for learning".

Source: "Mastery Learning Stifles Individuality", Carl Glickman, Educational Leadership, November 1979, p. 100.

완전학습 기본 원리:

  • 학생들에게 충분한 시간이 주어지고 적절한 수업이 이루어지면 학생들은 그들이 배운 내용의 90%을 성취할 수 있다.
  • 충분한 시간의 의미:
    • 목표의 성취 정도를 증명하기 위해 부과된 시간
  • 적절한 수업의 의미:
    • 주어진 교과를 수업 단위로 나눔
    • 각 단원의 학습 목표 설정
    • 다음 단원으로 넘어가기 전에 학생들로 하여금 본 단원의 목표를 성취했는지 증명하도록 함
  • 성적 산출 근거:
    • 실지로 성취한 학습 목표의 갯 수
    • 학습한 단원의 갯 수
    • 각 단원에 도달하는데 따른 숙달 수준(proficiency level)
    • 위 사항들의 조합
  • 교과가 매우 구조화 되어 있다면 학생들은 자신의 학습 속도로 개별 학습을 할 수 있지만, 집단학습을 하기에는 곤란하다.

장점:

  1. 학생들은 다음 단원으로 옮겨가기 전에 필요한 기능을 갖춘다.
  2. 교사는 과제분석(task analysis)을 해야 하고, 그 결과 해당 단원에 대해 보다 잘 준비하게 된다.
  3. 교사는 학습 활동 설계 이전에 학습 목표를 진술하여야 한다.
  4. 실패의 악순환을 방지할 수 있다.

단점:

완전학습에는 시간-성취라는 문제가 있다. 공부를 잘 하는 학생은 공부를 못하는 학생들이 따라 올 때까지 기다려야 하는 문제가 있다. 또 다른 문제는 교사가 매 시간마다 학생 개개인에게 필요한 출발점 행동(entry behavior; readiness)을 파악할 수 있느냐이다. 학생들이 교사가 원하는 목표에 도달하지 못한 원인은 반드시 학생들의 학습 능력에 의한 것만은 아닐 수 있다. 학습 습관이라든지 다른 심리적 요인이 될 수 도 있다. 또 다른 중요한 단점은 학습 속도가 느린 학생끼리 집단 편성을 할 가능성이 높기 때문에 자칫 부정적인 자아개념(self-concept)을 형성할 수 있다. 반대로 학습 속도가 빠른 학생은 우월의식에 빠지게 할 가능성이 있다. 완전학습의 문제점에 관한 연구들을 정리하면 다음과 같다.

  1. 모든 학생들이 같은 학습 속도로 수업진행이 어렵다. 따라서, 먼저 학습목표를 성취한 학생은 다른 학생들이 성취할 때까지 기다려야 하는 모순이 있다.
  2. 재교육을 위한 다양한 학습 자료를 개발해야 한다.
  3. 매 단원마다 여러 세트의 성취도 검사도구가 있어야 한다.
  4. 객관식 성취도 평가가 주를 이루면 고등사고 능력의 향상보다는 사실 지식의 암기 및 학습이 주를 이루게 된다.

 

완전 학습 수업안:

  •  

 

참고 문헌:

  • Anderson, L.W. (Ed.) (1985). Perspectives on school learning: Selected writings of John B. Carroll. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Barlow, D. L. (1985). Educational pPsychology: The teaching-learning process. Chicago: Moody Press. p. 227-228.
  • Block, J. H. (Ed.). (1971). Mastery learning: Theory and practice. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
  • Block, J. H., Efthim, H. E., & Burns, R.B. (1989). Building effective mastery learning schools. New York: Longman.
  • Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Co, Inc.
  • Bloom, B. S. (1968). Learning for mastery. Evaluation Comment. 1(2), 1-12.
  • Bloom, B. S. (1976). Human characteristics and school learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Bloom, B. S. (1981). All our children learning. New York: McGraw-Hill Co.
  • Carroll, J. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record, 64, 723-33.
  • Carroll, J.B. (1964). Language and thought. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  • Carroll, J.B. (1989). The Carroll model: A 25 year retrospective and prospective view. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 26-31.
  • Carroll, J.B. (1993). Educational psychology in the 21st century. Educational psychologist, 28, 89-95.
  • Cox, W.F. & Dunn, T. G. (1979). Mastery learning: A psychological trap? Educational Pyschologist, 14, 24-29.
  • Gage. N. L., & Berliner, D. C. (1992). Educational psychology (5th ed). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.
  • Gagne, R. (1977). The conditions of learning (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
  • Gagne, R., & Briggs, L. (1979). Principles of instructional design (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
  • Good, T., & Grouws, D. (1979). The Missouri Mathematics Effectiveness Project: An experimental study in fourth-grade classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 355-362.
  • Hunter, M. (1982). Mastery teaching. El Sequndo, CA: TIP Publications.
  • Joyce, B., & Weil, M. (1996). Models of teaching (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  • Levine, D. (1985). Improving student achievement through mastery learning programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • McCormick, C., & Pressley, M. (1997). Educational psychology: Learning, instruction, assessment. New York: Longman Publishers.
  • Rosenshine, B. (1995). Advances in research on instruction. The Journal of Educational Research, 88(5), 262-268.
  • Slavin, R.E. (1987). Mastery learning reconsidered. Review of Educational Research, 57(2), 175-214.

참고 사이트:

 

Since 04/25/02  

  자료 제공 : 황윤한 (광주교대), 조영임(광주무학초등학교)