After my Skiing holiday over the Christmas break, I have been pondering mastery (and also Learning Styles – but that may be another blog – just don’t tell @tombennett71 !)

Mastery techniques were first introduced and proposed by Bloom (1968), an American Educational Psychologist (who is also well known for his taxonomy) which focus on a learning model where students achieve a set learning objective or goal before they are taught the next skill.

The suggestion is that a teacher would set a threshold around the level of achievement which is usually measured by a test, with an eighty percent or above pass rate. If a student does not achieve this expected level, then they go back to revise and revisit the skills to tackle the test again and achieve the threshold before they can move to the next step.

This is a technique favoured by the French Ski School. Above beginner ski level, when selecting a lesson, there are several options to choose, Stage 1, Stage 2, Stage 3 and Stage 4 (Expert). Each stage has to be achieved before moving to the next class. There is a test at the beginning of the lesson sequence, to establish that skiers are placed in the correct set. Thus, mastery in the French Ski school is set as,

Stage 1 – I can control my speed using basic turns with skidding on gentle slopes

Stage 2 – I finish my turn with parallel skis and I control my speed by skidding my skis

Stage 3 – I can link small and large radius parallel turns controlling my speed

Stage 4 (Expert) – I link small and large radius turns on all snow conditions and all terrain

The EEF Toolkit view on mastery is not dissimilar, focusing on clearly defined objectives, which have to be achieved before moving to the next stage.  The suggestion is that for mastery techniques to be successful, clear objectives are set and there is feedback available form a variety of sources.

The French Ski objectives, because they are one sentence long,  may appear easy to achieve, however going from basic turns to linking turns on all snow conditions and all terrain, would I consider to be on par with an Olympic standard. Therefore possibly unachievable to the majority of people who ski for one week a year on holiday.

We have adopted mastery into common educational usage, and taken on board advice from the EEF toolkit, especially around programmes such as the Mathematics Mastery Programme, but is it a technique? a teaching style? a strategy? or simply good teaching? and if relying on testing a strategy can it only work for a subject which can be taught in a linear way? In maths, our teaching cannot move on, for example to number bonds if our students cannot count and have not developed one to one correspondence. However in literacy our students will be able to read a level of narrative, such as a Great Expectations, but not reproduce this standard themselves, yet achieve good levels of writing competence, to enable them to reach national standards.

Comparatively for a physical activity, which requires a set of skills to be totally competent to safely get down a very steep mountain and which can depend on other variables, is a mastery programme which keeps a student at the same level for a number of years, the best approach?

To a non-skier, I could look like an expert as I can put on boots, clip into skis, use a lift (an art form in itself, and can depend on the lift – there are different types) and get down mountains without falling over, but my competence will depend on the snow conditions; fresh powder, and I’m the clichéd ‘King of the Mountain, but on icy, compacted snow, I adopt another cliché and could be described as ‘Bambi on ice’. On a blue run I could be an expert, but on a black run (the most difficult and complex runs) I could be at beginner or novice level.

I have lots of ski experience, yes,  and technically I’m not bad on some slopes, but experience a loss of skills when faced with something more challenging. The speed and what I feel is the lack of control, frightens me. No matter how many times I’m told to bend my knees and lean forward and all the other things I know I should do, when under pressure, they do not happen. I look down a slope, decide I can’t turn, and stop. I’m quite good at sliding, as this is my default position when I cannot make turns due to fear.

When I join ski school, how much does a ski instructor know about my skill levels and what I can do?  On a test run down a green run, I look Ok, and on a blue run I manage, I may make shorter turns but I can keep up with a group, stand up straight and look technically fine, but does anyone ask me about my confidence levels, which if asked is what I consider the barrier to my greater skiing achievement. No, is the answer, my achievement is judged by a visible observation.

Last year I wrote a blog, about my ski instructor – #SkiwithMatt and how he understood where my skiing mastery was and how he improved my confidence. The key to Matt’s success as a teacher was that he established what we wanted as a group, so that we could achieve, and key was that the group collectively wanted to enjoy themselves and not experience too much challenge.

Challenge can be good in some context, but sometimes as an adult I know how much challenge I would like. Matt liked to sing and encouraged us to do this when we found we were challenged, or frightened or scared (as a strategy, it worked for me) and as he had decided on the end goal, the tasks to get there reinforced this. It was always consistent (we sang everyday)!

This year, I have experienced first-hand how a teacher can get it wrong, working within the same mastery parameters. Firstly, I think, by not knowing his people and his group.  He started with giving everyone an easy test (ski skills tested on a very gentle slope – see above to why this is unrealistic) and then moving too quickly to a red run without explaining how and what. At no point did he ask his group what they wanted from the lessons.

If I’m going to tackle a red run, I like to prepare myself mentally, and think it through, also I like a choice about whether I want to do it or not. A surprise challenge for me does not work. Making assumptions based on a test and my mind set also doesn’t work – what do I want from ski school – a pleasant week skiing at my level. Overall this technique failed for me and made me doubt my ability, to such an extent I asked to move to another ski lesson with another instructor.

If I feel like this about something I have a choice about what I do, I don’t have to have ski lessons and I don’t have to go on another ski holiday if I don’t want to, but the learners in our classrooms, don’t have that same choice. When we work within what we consider mastery approaches are we thinking about our learners and what barriers and anxieties they may be bringing to the learning environment? Are we prepared for the learners who are going to take longer than their classmates to reach mastery? Do we have strategies to help learners who may never achieve the mastery level we have set for a class? What do we do about moving on, when not all of our class have not achieved mastery? How do we manage the learners who can achieve the level set, very easily? How do we keep these students motivated? Isn’t this good teaching?

I’m still pondering mastery, but to me I think it might be just a word to describe good teaching, as the test is an assessment technique to establish where learners are, and all good teachers, have ways of judging correctly where learners are and adjust their teaching accordingly.

I think mastery may restrict a teacher’s ability to adjust teaching to suit a group, as the parameters, like the French ski school, can be set that some will never achieve a mastery level. 

I am prepared to disagree and change my mind, if I am presented with a reasonable argument.

Can you persuade me to see if differently?