Educators are constantly lamenting the lack of writing skill observed in their students. However, few teachers take any ownership over this often-cited deficit in their own students, preferring to blame social trends regarding technology, entertainment, and the popularity – or lack thereof – of reading. 

Many English teachers claim that reading is the key to writing (Hanski, 2014). They suggest that the rules of English grammar will be learned naturally as one continues to read English prose. These same teachers suggest that the lack of writing skill we presently observe in our students is the result of a lack of such reading. While I would certainly agree that reading does improve writing skill, I must disagree with any position that views writing skill as being wholly dependent on reading. In truth, I believe that writing skill is a body of knowledge that must be taught - not absorbed subliminally. I believe that one must first learn the rules of grammar before one can even begin to recognize the various rules and conventions at play in our language. Otherwise, commas that come before coordinating conjunctions, for example, will seem like just another random event. In my view, until one understands that there is in fact a rule being invoked, one will not realize they are observing such a rule when they see it. 

To be sure, it is widely believed that the quality of writing skill amongst English writers is on the decline. Few teachers would disagree with this. I strongly believe, however, that the cause of this deterioration is not a lack of reading, but rather the Whole Language movement that came to the forefront of educationalist theory back in the 1970s. Whole Language (also known as “New English”) is a learning theory that believes language is acquired most effectively when language is kept whole, and not fragmented into skills. The theory sounds very nice, and was without a doubt well-intentioned. However, I personally prefer the perspective provided by Steven Laffoley, a Canadian English teacher and school principal. In a 2004 CBC radio commentary, Laffoley described Whole Language as a movement that “blindly trusted a student’s individual intuition and ... encouraged students to write willy-nilly, unfettered by rules of grammar or qualitative evaluation.” Laffoley went on to say, “Unfortunately, Whole Language failed to produce competent writers. And worse. Whole Language imparted to students a fantastical and unwarranted sense of self-esteem and self-confidence in writing. They were told they write well, but in truth, they have no practical knowledge of English or of writing and certainly no sense of its craft. In truth, they are inexperienced and incompetent.” 

Laffoley’s final assertion is the most damning, not just of Whole Language, but of the very future of the English language: “Even if we had the will to change our course suddenly, we would be left to confront the dark, awful truth that this generation of teachers is the product of New English. Frankly, many teachers are without the fundamental grammatical knowledge necessary to teach our children.” 

While some may view Laffoley as being cynical, it's hard to deny his point. If we teachers do not understand the mechanics of writing, then how can we expect students to understand the mechanics of writing? Should we simply ask our students to read more? That’s an easy out... but I suspect that's not the answer. I say this for two reasons. The first is that any modern piece of published writing can, and likely does, contain numerous grammatical errors. As such, modern published writing cannot be utilized dependably as exemplars of grammatically correct writing. The second reason is this: reading didn’t work for us. Teachers read, do we not? Yet, how many of us have enough faith in our knowledge of grammar to qualitatively mark grammar? If we do mark grammar, then how often do we simply underline a phrase or clause and write [awk] or [revise] or [rewrite] on the student’s paper? If we do understand the notion of, for example, parallel structure, how often do we just mark the paper with [ // ] and then move on? Can we actually explain the meaning of parallelism to our students? Can we identify the non-parallel elements within the sentence? Can we describe these elements in terms of their parts of speech? How often do we find ourselves saying, “I know it doesn’t sound right, but I can’t really say why”? In her 1994 article, The missing foundation in teacher education: Knowledge of the structure of spoken and written language, Louisa Cook Moats discusses the findings of her study wherein she tested experienced teachers on reading, language arts, and special education to determine whether they have the requisite awareness of language elements. "The results were surprisingly poor, indicating that even motivated and experienced teachers typically understand too little about spoken and written language structure to be able to provide sufficient instruction in these areas." After these same teachers took a course focusing on phonemic awareness training, spoken-written language relationships, and analysis of spelling and reading behaviour in children, the teachers judged this information to be "essential for teaching" and advised that it "become a prerequisite for certification." 

I would even go so far as to suggest that we teachers – many of us the products of Whole Language – have simply tuned our ears to our own writing styles, and remain oblivious to the countless errors that we commit on a regular basis. We do this simply because we, quite frankly, find ourselves in constant agreement with the mechanics that we taught ourselves all those years ago in middle school. Thus, we think ourselves competent writers, yet we cannot really explain our system of writing to anyone else. Until we subject our own system of grammar to scrutiny, and dare to acquire an understanding of the grammatical rules that have governed our language for centuries, then we cannot know for certain whether our knowledge of English is truly knowledge, or simply a fairy tale told to us long ago by our Whole Language teachers. 

All is not lost

If we do indeed have the will to change our course, then each and every teacher who deals with the written word can become an advocate for the authentic English language. There is still an abundance of grammar books available on the market, and more grammar blogs and websites come online every year. Any one of us can access these resources in an effort to improve our knowledge of English grammar, and, in so doing, we can help our students do the same. We even see evidence of a writing revolution in places like New Dorp High, a New York high school wherein "students suffered from a writing deficit that neither huge technology investments nor radical staffing changes could remedy" (Tyre, 2012). In 2009, the school finally resorted to implementing a cross-curricular program that required students to write expository essays and learn the fundamentals of grammar. "Within two years, the school's pass rates for the English Regents test and the global-history exam were soaring. The school's drop-out rate — 40 percent in 2006 — has fallen to 20 percent" (Tyre, 2012). "Homework got a lot harder. Teachers stopped giving fluffy assignments such as, “Write a postcard to a friend describing life in the trenches of World War I,” and instead demanded that students fashion an expository essay describing three major causes of the conflict" (Tyre, 2012).

Knowledge of grammar is not a destination: it is a journey. It is unrealistic to expect anyone to learn all of the intricacies of our language, but that does not mean that we, as teachers, should not endeavour to expand and improve our knowledge of grammar, and then teach that knowledge – true knowledge – to our students. The only question we must ask is, do we have the will?

References

Hanski, Mike. Want to be a Better Writer? Read More. Huffington Post, June, 2014. Web. Oct. 2016. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-hanski/read-more_b_5192754.html>

Krashen, S. (1989), We Acquire Vocabulary and Spelling by Reading: Additional Evidence for the Input Hypothesis. The Modern Language Journal, 73: 440–464. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1989.tb05325.x

Strom, Ingrid M. "Does Knowledge of Grammar Improve Reading?" The English Journal 45.3 (1956): 129-33. Web.
​
Tyre, Peg. “The Writing Revolution” The Atlantic.com. The Atlantic Monthly Group, October 2012.      Web. Oct. 2012. <http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/10/the-writing-  revolution/309090/>

Mastery learning is one of the most discussed but little pursued concepts in education. We hear a lot of talk about mastery learning, but how many teachers actually do it? I mean actual mastery learning, where students have the opportunity to establish "a level of performance that all students must master before moving on to the next unit" (Slavin, 1987). Sure, we might see the odd educator referring to test rewrites as "mastery learning," but that is hardly establishing "mastery" of the material. At best, it is a chance to revisit the material once. At worst, it is simply marking a test twice. 

Unlimited mastery learning across the entire curriculum of a given course is, without a doubt, a daunting prospect. However, it can be done. As long as a teacher leverages the tools currently available, and maintains focus on the true intent of mastery learning, then mastery learning can indeed be achieved in many modern learning environments. What follows are a few of the keys to mastery learning that I have discovered in my practice, as well as some practical advice on implementing these keys.


Key 1: Mastery learning is mastery learning... not mastery marking.

Mastery learning occurs at the formative level. Multiple opportunities provided to student to improve their summative marks is a separate (albeit related) issue from mastery learning. Make no mistake: true mastery learning is about learning – not marks. (More on that later.) Assessment designed to provide feedback and direction for improvement is, by definition, formative assessment. Ergo, genuine mastery learning occurs at the formative level. The relationship between mastery learning and the student’s summative marks should, if the endeavour is pursued correctly, simply follow as a natural positive correlation. Now, as for the whole "pursued correctly" thing, well... that's the whole trick of the endeavour. (Again, more on that below.)

Key 2: Mastery learning can occur anywhere, but is most important to pursue for foundational concepts. 

I will never be a master of memorization. My brain just doesn’t work that way. However, many people have incredible memories. We don’t want to design formative assessments to promote mastery memorization, though. The memorization of facts is, without a doubt, critically important to learning: even skill-based learning. As is often said amongst brain researchers, “You need to know something before you can think about something.” I will certainly concede that there is great value in memorization of knowledge, and I will also concede the fact that mastery learning can in fact reinforce that knowledge. (Just ask any music student who has repeatedly used flashcards to memorize the notes of the treble or bass clef.) 

Indeed, knowledge is the soil from which thinking grows, and thinking can be thought of as the branches from which the leaves of creativity spring. Yes, people, organizations, businesses, society, and civilization all need people who can think and exercise creativity, but before any of that can happen, knowledge (actual knowledge... not opinion) must be in place. 

Key 3. Formative assessment can only generate mastery learning if students have some way to examine and understand their own formative results. 

I cannot emphasize enough the need for the student to understand… not be told by someone else who understands. The student must have the opportunity to engage in self-assessment (i.e. assessment as learning) following each formative assessment. Otherwise, the student is essentially spinning a dial each time he takes the assessment, and hoping that the dial will eventually land on “Mastered!”

The formative assessment must not only provide a mark to the student, and record that mark for both the student and the teacher, but that mark must be broken down into its constituent parts as well. In other words, a quiz comprised of ten questions must present the student with a result for each question.

As counter-intuitive as this might seem, providing feedback to the student on each and every aspect of a given formative assessment, is, almost by definition, not particularly required for assessment “as” learning. The more salient issue is whether the student has the opportunity to look at an incorrect result and process, for himself, why the result is wrong. Only when that critical step is facilitated, and then the student has the opportunity to test and confirm his new understanding in subsequent assessments, will the student experience what is perhaps the most powerful form of learning available: assessment “as” learning.


But... who can do all that marking?!

A very small percentage of teachers have ever pursued unlimited mastery learning across their entire curriculum. Ask most teachers about the least favourite part of their job, and they will undoubtedly say it's the marking. Marking is relentless, and most teachers find the prospect of marking all of their assessments just once to be incredibly challenging at best. (At worst, it's impossible.) Now, add into this equation the following realities associated with formative assessment in a mastery learning environment:

1. many more formative assessments will be added into the assessment mix,
2. these formative assessments will be done several times,
3. these formative assessments will flow in at different times, and
4. the marks for these assessments must be recorded and tracked. (This step may seem optional, but it’s not. All formative results must be tracked in a grade manager. Don’t even tell me about how great your memory is. A teacher’s brain will simply not be able to retain progress results for several students, across several courses, across several assessments, across a span of several months. That’s impossible.)

Remind most teachers of these elements, and they will tell you that true, unlimited, mastery learning is simply not a reality.

Enter the new reality

For the most part, teachers who balk at the idea of genuine mastery learning would be correct were it not for one thing: the incredible opportunities now provided to educators by way of technology. The technological tools and applications available today provide educators with the opportunity to provide their students with assessments that are not only completed online, but marked immediately by the online application and then recorded in the application's central grade manager. Admittedly, that’s a lot of data crunching, but remember: that’s what computers do. 

Make no mistake though, in order for genuine mastery learning to be pursued, teachers must leverage technology that can manage the recording and tracking of marks. (Remember what I said about the "impossible" thing above. A teacher's memory and vague impressions will not suffice in the effort to administer formative assessment.)

Developing a Mastery Learning Lab

So now, what can you do in your classroom to start implementing true, unlimited, mastery learning, today? You can go out on the web and register yourself with any number of free online learning management systems (such as CourseSites or Schoology to name just a couple) or set up an account with one of the pre-developed learning systems (such as Khan Academy or Mathletics), and then establish an online Mastery Learning Lab!

To create a Mastery Learning Lab (MLL), you will need to develop a collection of quizzes and activities that the Learning Management System (LMS) can mark and record, or you will need to register for a pre-developed system that marks and records its own pre-existing quizzes and activities. Either way, the quizzes in your Lab are "mastery learning" quizzes because you can invite your students to take these quizzes repeatedly until they master them. (Note: Online Learning Management Systems generally provide teachers with the option of emphasize the most recent mark, the highest mark, or the average of all attempts on a given quiz or activity.)  

An important caveat about formative assessments 

Formative assessment is great, but it's not perfect. Let's just acknowledge two elephants in the room when it comes to formative assessment: students often don't do them, and, when they do, they don't tend to provide them their best effort.

1. Students tend not to do activities that are not associated with a summative mark. Oh... did you think that was unique to your students? Nope! That's basically a universal law... and it doesn't matter how "interesting," "relevant," "fun," or "engaging" the work is. It's basic economics: time is scarce, so, all other things being equal, students will direct less time and effort toward school activities that are not associated with a summative mark.
2. Related to the point above, even if we do collect formative data, we must remember that we are observing the results of efforts towards an assessment that the student knew would not count. Again, all other things being equal, results on formative assessments will generally reflect a lower degree of effort and diligence than we would see on equivalent summative assessments. Thus, steering  your classroom by observing formative assessment data is kind of like steering your car by looking through a foggy windshield. 

A simple solution: Make your Mastery Learning Lab the best of both worlds!

Did you know there's no law against making an assessment both formative AND summative? Yup. It's true. Go ahead... look it up. No law!

So, here's what you do. You make sure that your students understand that the quizzes and activities in your Mastery Learning Lab are "formative" during a unit because they are mastery quizzes that students can take over and over again during the unit to help them develop their understanding of the topic. Moreover, the results on these assessments will help both the student and the teacher identify areas of strength and weakness as you move through a unit, thereby helping to guide next steps. However, at the conclusion of the unit these quizzes and activities become "summative" because their final marks will indeed be counted toward the final grade as of the conclusion of a given unit. (See more on this approach by examining the post on Index Marking.)

Boom! Best of both worlds! The student gets to attempt assessments in a non-threatening, low-stress, mastery environment that is formative during the unit, but the students are also motivated to not only do these assessments but to provide them their best effort because they know that the assessments will eventually count toward their grade. 

In Summary

Setting up a Mastery Learning Lab is definitely a big time investment. This investment can be reduced markedly if one utilizes a pre-developed learning system such as Mathletics or Khan Academy, but, either way, it requires an investment. The question then becomes: Is it worth the investment? In my opinion, it is well worth the investment. Especially if you are confident that you will be teaching the same course for a number of years. I might even suggest that the payback period on a teacher's investment in a Mastery Learning Lab could be as little as two years. In other words, the time you put into your Lab will be returned, with dividends, after two years. 

Consider setting up a Mastery Learning Lab for one of your courses today, and let me know how it goes.


References

Slavin, R. E. (1987). Mastery learning reconsidered. Review of Educational Research, 57, 175-213.

I find myself raving more and more about Kahoot to my colleagues these days, so I thought I would take a moment to help spread the word about this incredible online educational app.

Kahoot is essentially an online, interactive game that can be created and launched by anyone who signs up for a free account at Create.Kahoot.it. 

These games proceed by broadcasting a sign-up screen, which invites participants (i.e. students) to join the game by browsing to www.kahoot.it, and then entering a unique PIN number (which is generated each time a Kahoot is launched). The game begins when the game host (i.e. the teacher) decides to start the game. The host and the players can see the names of everyone who has signed up for the game, although participants have the freedom of entering any name they might wish. (I should add that the game host can kick out any participant who decides to enter using some sort of naughty or offensive name.)

Games are essentially comprised of multiple choice questions featuring a question and four associated answer options. One or more answer options can be designated as correct by the game designer. Each game can feature an identifying image or video, and each question therein can also feature its own unique image or video.

Once the game is launched, students have a brief moment to read each question before the answer options are displayed. Once the answers are displayed, the players have a certain amount of time (designated by the game designer) to select the correct option. Answer options are coded by both colour and shape. Students thus click on the colour and shape associated with the answer they believe to be correct. All students ever see on their own device screens are the four colours and shapes. 

Each question finishes once the time designated for the question expires, or when all players have answered the question - whichever comes first. At that time, a bar graph displaying the number of players who chose each answer is presented. In addition, this graph indicates which of the four answers was correct. After that, a scoreboard showing the top five scores and their associated player usernames is displayed. The game then proceeds with the next question, and it carries on in that order until all questions have been answered. I should point out that there is a set of options that are selected at the outset of each game, and these include the option to randomize the questions.

​So then, why am I loving Kahoot so much right now? Well, let me tell you...

1. With Kahoot's newly refined interface, these little games are lightning fast to build and launch. (After all, if a given tool, technology, or approach isn't firmly grounded within the reality of a teacher's tight time constraints, then it simply won't be used.) Kahoot's new game creator interface is slick, intuitive, and highly responsive. In fact, I would hazard a guess that I could build a brand new, ten-question Kahoot on almost any topic in about 15 minutes. Moreover, entire Kahoot games, as well as individual Kahoot questions, are very easy to duplicate and then modify. (Indeed, duplication and modification of questions is a key feature that makes Kahoots so fast to build.)

​2. Kids love playing Kahoot! My students beg to play Kahoot every class. The game is fun, fast-paced, and is designed to engage each and every student in real time. ALL students (not just the high achievers) compete in a safe, anonymous environment. Only the top five scorers are revealed after each question. (Low scorers don't need to worry about being embarrassed.)


​3. Kahoots are an excellent tool for formative assessment. The students and the teacher immediately learn whether the class is mastering or struggling with certain material. Moreover, the teacher can actually download and save comprehensive results for the entire class after each game. (See detailed directions on how to download full class results from a Kahoot.)

​
​4. Finally, I just discovered (through pure experimentation) that the Logitech presenter that I use to remotely operate my PowerPoints and Google Slide presentations will also work with Kahoot! This means that teachers are no longer tethered to their computers while hosting a Kahoot, and are thus free to walk around amongst their students during the game. 

​If you're teaching in a one-to-one environment, I hope you'll give Kahoot a try the next time you're looking for a fun, interactive experience that will reinforce learning, provide instant remediation, and generate excellent formative assessment data that can guide next steps for both teachers and students.