1 Introduction Language teaching approaches and methods are so many. Each of which has a specific view on how languages are learnt. When talking about language teaching, four main criteria should be taken into account: the theoretical linguist, applied linguist, the teacher and the learner. The theoretical linguist is the person who comes up with approaches and hypotheses about langu age. The applied linguist, the middle man who b ridges the g ap between the theoretical linguist and the classroom teacher, takes these approaches and tries to facilitate them and to make them easy for the teacher so as to implement them in the classroom. The teacher, in turn, uses his own techniques so as to implement these methods of the applied linguist to explain the lesson to the students. According to Anthony (1963), these terms are in a hierarchical order in which an approach precedes a method and the latter precedes a technique. This research paper, therefore, examines, in detailed, some traditional methods vs. modern ones so as to see the main similarities and differences between the two. Although different agents contribute in the learning process, including the theoretical linguist, the applied linguist and the teacher, besides other factor, there are lots of reasons that influence language learning both positively and negatively. Chief among these is the learning style of the learners. The performance of students varies considerably from one learner to another, although this does not mean that each student has a stagnant fixed learning style. In this circumstance of different learning styles, thus, the teacher is required to recognise the students‟ learning styles and apply different techniques of teaching that go with the learning styles of the learners so as to engage them actively in the learning process. Besides, personalities of learners differ tremendously; there are some introvert learners who are shy to get in contact with other people, participate in the activities of classroom, and incapable to share their ideas and feeling with their classmates and teachers. However, it is widely acknowledged that extrovert students overcome shyness and participate actively and cooperatively in the learning process. Motivation is also another important factor that affects learning either positively or negatively. We can distinguish between internal and external motivation: the first is basically influenced by age, gender and attitude towards learning. The second may be unconstructive criticism and negative feedback by the teacher, rewards, confidence the teacher creates. Punishing a student, for instance, for not answering would minimise his motivation. Thus, group based instruction and individualised instruction are the
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Language teaching approaches and methods are so many. Each of which has a specific
view on how languages are learnt. When talking about language teaching, four main criteria
should be taken into account: the theoretical linguist, applied linguist, the teacher and the
learner. The theoretical linguist is the person who comes up with approaches and hypotheses
about language. The applied linguist, the middle man who bridges the gap between the
theoretical linguist and the classroom teacher, takes these approaches and tries to facilitate
them and to make them easy for the teacher so as to implement them in the classroom. The
teacher, in turn, uses his own techniques so as to implement these methods of the appliedlinguist to explain the lesson to the students. According to Anthony (1963), these terms are in
a hierarchical order in which an approach precedes a method and the latter precedes a
technique. This research paper, therefore, examines, in detailed, some traditional methods vs.
modern ones so as to see the main similarities and differences between the two.
Although different agents contribute in the learning process, including the theoretical
linguist, the applied linguist and the teacher, besides other factor, there are lots of reasons that
influence language learning both positively and negatively. Chief among these is the learning
style of the learners. The performance of students varies considerably from one learner to
another, although this does not mean that each student has a stagnant fixed learning style. In
this circumstance of different learning styles, thus, the teacher is required to recognise the
students‟ learning styles and apply different techniques of teaching that go with the learning
styles of the learners so as to engage them actively in the learning process. Besides,
personalities of learners differ tremendously; there are some introvert learners who are shy to
get in contact with other people, participate in the activities of classroom, and incapable toshare their ideas and feeling with their classmates and teachers. However, it is widely
acknowledged that extrovert students overcome shyness and participate actively and
cooperatively in the learning process. Motivation is also another important factor that affects
learning either positively or negatively. We can distinguish between internal and external
motivation: the first is basically influenced by age, gender and attitude towards learning. The
second may be unconstructive criticism and negative feedback by the teacher, rewards,
confidence the teacher creates. Punishing a student, for instance, for not answering would
minimise his motivation. Thus, group based instruction and individualised instruction are the
best ways to stimulate learners to do well and motivate them through planning activities and
applying teaching methods which take into account all the learning styles and all backgrounds
of learners.
We chose to write about this topic for two main reasons. First, we are interested muchmore to know about the field of applied linguistics, for it is interested in pedagogy. Since the
majority of us expect themselves to become future teachers, the only way, we thought, to have
an idea about applied linguistics is to search and read as much as possible about this special
field. In addition, developing a monograph about such topic would undoubtedly enrich our
memory. This monograph introduces the main factors of teaching: the teacher, the learner,
and the classroom situation. Knowing, therefore, the role of each one is of great importance
for any graduate student interested in the teaching career. Second, since our prospect is to
carry out our studies, applied linguistics may be one of those branches for which we will opt
for. As a result, having developed a well-detailed research about teaching would be a starting
point for a successful career in master studies. These two main important reasons have indeed
encouraged us to develop a research paper entitled “Combating Individual differences using
Mastery Learning Methodology” under the supervision of Mrs. Fatima Amahzoune.
In the point of departure of this research paper, we observed that differences in
achievement and performance seem to prevail mainly among undergraduate students and we presume that this problem can be attributed to many reasons: individuals‟ different
background and low motivation stand as an obstacle that impedes the achievements of the
learners during high school. The path through which students pass to university is not
designed to allow all students to equally achieve mastery on what they have learned. As these
individual differences in the preceding levels before university prevail, the inevitable result is
poor competence. Traditional methods established a sort of competition among students who
try to get good grades, only few students could attain good grades in comparison to their
classmates, and students usually learn a particular subject on the basis of their natural inherent
features, such as aptitude and intelligence.
Striving to look for a suitable solution to these problems, exemplified in students‟
difficulty to become proficient , which is probably due to their different backgrounds, aptitude
and motivation, we have gone over Mastery Learning theory, and we assume that this theory
can provide teachers with strategies that would probably melt down the individual different
backgrounds that prevail in the Moroccan public schools and motivate students to learn
cooperatively, and we will also attempt to inquire about the strategies teachers use to
I. Second Language Acquisition theories1. Behaviourism
The Behaviorist Theory is set on the findings of the Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov
who accidently discovered the phenomenon of classical conditioning. This took place whenPavlov was working with dogs in his laboratories and his attention was caught by the way the
dogs salivate when they were tasting food. What was more interesting is that dogs drool even
when they were not presented with food, but when the assistant of the laboratory, the person
who provides food, appears. Pavlov pursued this observation systematically by, for instance
ringing the bell prior to the arrival of the dogs‟ food. After a series of trials, the dogs would
begin to salivate when they hear the bell ring even though the food is not presented to them.
Another experiment was conducted by Watson and Rayner (1920) on an orphan called Little
Albert. They presented the child with little white rat; if the child went to touch or to strike the
rat, a very loud noise would be made behind his head. It appeared finally that Little Albert
became afraid of the sights of this rat. Afterward, B. F Skinner introduced what is called
operant conditioning, which is different from classical conditioning. Operant conditioning is
based on negative and positive reinforcement; it is associated with reaction to improve or to
degrade the response. For instance, if the student does well in class, the teacher praises him
saying “good, well done”. This is called positive reinforcement. However, if the student
makes mistakes or does not do his homework, the teacher gives him extra-homework as a
positive punishment.
In short, behaviorists suggest that all our behaviors are based on conditioning, our
surroundings are the determinants of our behavior, the external is emphasized and the mind is
excluded, and that people are born with a „tabula rasa‟; that is, our mind is a blank slate ready
to absorb from the environment that surrounds us.
Types of Reinforcement and Punishment:
Reinforcement is a result that improves the likelihood that a behavior will occur; in
fact, it strengthens a behavior. As for punishment, it is a result of a consequence that degrades
the likelihood a behavior will occur; it weakens a behavior. According to the following
figures, there are two forms of reinforcement and punishment:
of Mentalism, stating that „every theory of learning that is worth considering incorporates an
innateness hypothesis‟. He also quoted Cook (1983) who believes that even the Behaviourismattributes to the child an ability to form associations of stimulus and response.
3. Krashen’s Theory of Second Langauge Acquisition
Second language acquisition researchers have always been concerned with the order in
which the second language is acquired (learned). In first language acquisition, the child, the
behaviourists assumed, is born as a blank slate which is ready to absorb the input introduced
by the environment; generative theory, led by Chomsky, maintains that the child is equipped
with Language Acquisition Device. Second language learners have already internalised a
system of language, and hence theories of second language acquisition are basically
concerned with finding an appropriate theory to produce a native-like proficiency in second or
foreign languages, adopting the same procedures of first language acquisition. In this section,
the focus will be laid on an innatist model pioneered by Stephen Krashen. The latter‟s theory
of second language acquisition is made up of a set of interrelated hypotheses which are briefly
II. Traditional Methods1) Grammar Translation Method
Background
Grammar Translation Method (GTM) refers to an approach to language teaching,
appeared in Germany and dominated European and foreign language teaching from 1840s to
the 1940s; it was, in fact, known as the Prussian or the Classical Method since it was first
used in the teaching of the classical languages, Latin and Greek. Yet, before going over the
most important characteristics of this method, let us first of all define its key words: grammar
and translation.
Penny (2000) defines the word grammar as “a set of rules that define how words (or
parts of words) are combined or changed to form acceptable units of meaning with a
language”. Therefore, guaranteeing the accuracy of the sentences mainly depends on the
learner‟s mastery of grammar, and it is an essential and important part of language. The
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English defines grammar as “the study of use of the
rules by which words change their forms and are combined into sentences.” In fact, it has
multi-meanings. Batstone (1994) says, “Grammar is multi-dimensional”. Without grammar,
however, we cannot produce correct speech. For example, one may have thousands of words
but if he cannot know how to put them together, then he cannot produce good English
(Brumfit, 2000).
As for translation, it is often the communication of the meaning of a source- language
text by means of an equivalent target language text. Likewise, in his book, entitled
Translation: General and Lexical Problems, V.S. Vinogrador defines translation as “a process
(and its result) caused by social necessity of information (content) transmitting, expressed in a
written or oral text in one language by the means of an “equivalent (adequate) text in another
language.” In the same context, A.Lilova defines translation as “a specific oral or written
activity aimed at the recreation of an oral or written text (utterance) existing in one language
into a text in another language, accompanied by keeping the invariance of content, qualities of
the original and author‟s authenticity”.
Going back to the principles of grammar-translation method, one can say that GTM
was used with a view to help students read and appreciate foreign language literature. Thanks
to the study of grammar of the target language, it is argued, students would become morefamiliar with the grammar of their mother tongue; this familiarity, therefore, would help them
speak and write their native language better. As its name indicates and suggests, GTM focuses
much more on translation from the mother tongue into the target language or vice-versa;
hence, being able to translate each language into the other is the fundamental goal for
students. This automatically means that the ability to communicate in the target language is
not a goal of foreign language instruction since the primary skills to be developed are reading
and writing.
Before going over the most important and major roles that a student assumes in the
learning process, we should first define the term role.
What is a role?
According to Oxford Advanced Learner Dictionary (1955:1018), the word role isdefined as “an actor‟s part in a play” or a function that a person or a thing typically has or is
expected to have”.
M. Banton (1965:29) defines the word role as a set of norms and expectations applied
to the incumbents of a particular position”. In general, a role can be defined as the part that
someone plays in the performance of a social life activity.
Learner roles
The students receive instructions from their teachers in a passive way in the sense that
students in a classroom, wherein GTM takes place, do as their teacher says so that they can
learn what he knows. In the exam, for instance, students are required to reproduce what they
learnt; it is really a very traditional role. Students within a classroom of GTM should be able
to
Translate one language into the other
Show their comprehension by means of written language
Try to find the native language equivalents for all the words in L2 (word lists)
To memorize vocabulary and tenses of one set of irregular verbs.
Before highlighting the most important and major roles that a teacher assumes in the
teaching-learning process, we should first shed light on the teacher‟s personality and
characteristics.
The teacher’s personality and characteristics:
The teacher effectiveness is greatly and strongly related to his personality. For
instance, an effective teacher tends to be warm, understanding, friendly, responsible,
systematic, imaginative, enthusiastic…..Most importantly, the successful teacher must be
emotionally mature; which means that the teacher should not be scared by the student‟s
behavior towards him. David Fontana (1988:348) says, “The teachers who show themselvesquite unmoved by even the most Machiavellian strategies mounted against them soon find
these strategies losing their appeal for children, and they are able to deal quickly and
effectively with any subsequent sporadic fresh outbreak”. In this case, a highly level of self-
esteem and self confidence are two factors that help a teacher to tackle calmly and objectively
any kind of problems.
The teacher role
It is well known that GTM is a teacher-centered method in the sense that the teacher is
the authority in the classroom, his authority is exemplified in his decision whether an answer
is right or not. Additionally, he is the source of knowledge. That is, knowledge is highly
transferred from the teacher to the students. In the exam, for instance, the teacher expects his
students to reproduce what he has taught them. Finally, he is the more active and dynamic
while the learning process takes place in the classroom.
2) The Direct Method
In the mid nineteenth century, the bridges of communication among the European
nations became open; the introduction of industrialization and the development of
international trade demanded high proficiency in foreign languages. Language teachers had
already traced the deficiencies of Grammar Translation Method, particularly its inability to
develop communicative competence in the learners and its focus on accuracy rather than
fluency; thus, they felt the need for devising a new method in order to develop orally
The Direct Method is a result of different teaching experiences of prominent scholars
in the mid nineteenth century and the turn of the twentieth century; chief among these are
Gouin and Sauveur who both believed in the Natural Method and advocated the idea that first
language learning process could be the best model for teaching foreign languages. They
maintained that “a foreign language could be taught without translation or the use of the
learner‟s native tongue if meaning was conveyed directly through demonstration and action.”
It seems, thus, that the direct method eliminates one of the basic principles of Grammar
Translation Method in favour of a method in which interaction and demonstration through
action and the use of the target language is the basis to convey meaning. (Richard and
Theodore, 1986)
The Direct Method is founded on the assumption that the process of second language
learning should be more similar to that of first language acquisition, a process which involves
natural communication, no translation and no explanation of the grammar rules. It emphasizes
correct pronunciation, listening and speaking and learning basic sentences instead of single
words. The advocates of the direct method aim at setting up a direct association between
words and ideas and between the learners experience and the target language; that is, the
learner gains knowledge of a language within its cultural context through making direct bond
between words and concepts. Unlike Grammar Translation Method in which the teacherintroduces concepts through translating them into the learners‟ mother tongue, the Direct
Method discards the learners‟ mother tongue, allowing the learners to think, to speak and to
write using the target language without recourse to the equivalent terms in their mother
tongue. In this regard, Diane Larsen-Freeman quotes Diller (1978); he states that “the Direct
Method receives its name from the fact that meaning is to be connected directly with the target
language, without going through the process of translating into the students' native
language.”(Diane Larsen-Freeman, 2000)
The principles of the Direct Method were basically established upon the maxims of the
first language acquisition. Practically, supporters of this method highlight the following
principles:
1. Classroom instruction was conducted exclusively in the target language.
2. Only everyday vocabulary and sentences were taught.
Despite its popularity as the first method to take the initiative to develop oral
proficiency in the learners and despite its effectiveness in private schools which employ
native speaking teachers, and in which the paying clients were very motivated to hone their
oral skills, the Direct Method encountered harsh criticism.
First, it required teachers who were native speakers or who had native
like fluency in the foreign language. It was largely dependent on the
teacher's skill, rather than on a text book, and not all teachers were
proficient enough in the foreign language to adhere to the principles of
the method. (J. C. Richards and Theodore, 1997)
It seems, thus, that the Direct Method‟s major disadvantages is that it requires native teachers,
and it also demands paying clients; that is, the Direct Method can be effective only incommercial and private sector instead of public schools.
3) The Audiolingual Method
Like the Direct method, the Audio-lingual Method is an oral-based approach to
language learning; it can be defined as a “technique of foreign-language instruction that
emphasizes audio-lingual skills over reading and writing and is characterized by extensive use
of pattern practice.”(Dictionary.com) t underlines the importance of teaching speaking and
listening skills over reading and writing skills, and it is mainly based on drills, memorization
and dialogue in the teaching of foreign languages. According to this method, the mother
tongue of the learner should not intervene in foreign language learning.
In search for the origins of the Audio-lingual Method, we came across different
historical circumstances that converged to set up the foundations of a new method called
Audio-lingual Method. Chief among these circumstances are stated by Jack C. Richards and
Theodore S. Rodgers in their book, Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (1986 );the reported that the United States entry into World War II had a significant influence on
language teaching in America and that the U.S needed personnel who were fluent in foreign
languages, the emergence of structural linguistics had contributed much in the shaping of
Audio-lingual Method, and finally behaviorism had also deeply contributed in the
development of the so called Army method.
The political circumstances of the 1940‟s, especially the involvement of the U.S in the
Second World War II, its contact with foreign countries and colonies and its emergence as a
3. Reinforcement: if the response is appropriate, there is encouragement
(positive reinforcement) so that the behavior occurs again. If the behavior is
inappropriate, it is suppressed.
Basic Principles
The basic principles of the Audio-lingual Method can be enlisted as follows: (adapted
from Richards and Rodgers 1986:51)
Foreign language learning is basically a habit and hence good habits are formed by
giving correct responses.
Memorization and drilling minimize mistakes.
The focus is on form rather than meaning.
Learning language is based on learning structures.
Native speaker-like pronunciation is desired.
No explanation of grammar rules; grammar is taught inductively.
Focus on hearing, speaking and writing is not given much importance.
The learner‟s mother tongue is discouraged.
Analogy provides a better foundation for language learning than analysis.
Analogy involves the processes of generalization and discrimination. Explanations of
rules are therefore not given until students have practiced a pattern in a variety of
contexts and are thought to have acquired a perception of the analogies involved.
Drills can enable learners to form correct analogies. Hence the approach to the
teaching of grammar is essentially inductive rather than deductive. The meanings that the words of a language have for the native speaker can be learned
only in a linguistic and cultural context and not in isolation.
Objectives
In general terms, Audio-lingual method sets as its objective the training of the learners
to develop communicative competence in the target language. Richards and Rodgers
delineated the objective of Audiolingualism; they quoted Brooks (1964: 111) who
“distinguishes between short-range and long-range objectives of an audio-lingual program.
Short-range objectives include training in listening comprehension, accurate pronunciation,
recognition of speech symbols as graphic signs on the printed page, and ability to reproduce
these symbols in writing.”(Richard & Theodore, p: 52) It is implied from this short term
objectives that sound structures come first, familiarization of the students with vocabulary
items comes as a second step and finally meaning can be attained when students master the
sound structures and vocabulary items. Long term objectives, Brooks argues, “must be
language as the native speaker uses it .... There must be some knowledge of a second
language as it is possessed by a true bilingualist" (Brooks1964: 107).
One of the main goals of CLT is the teaching of communicative competence as
opposed to grammatical competence. That is, teaching language to learners to improve their
communicative capacity with a view to know how to use language for a range of different
purposes and functions. This automatically means that in planning language courses within a
communicative approach, grammar was no longer the starting point. For Hymes, a person
who acquires communicative competence acquires both knowing what to say and how to say
it. Littlewood (1981:1) declares, “One of the most characteristic features of communicative
language teaching is that it pays systematic attention to functional as well as structural aspects
of language”. This means that CLT, for him, is an amalgam of grammatica l and functional
teaching. For others, however, it means using tasks where learners work in groups. That is to
say, two groups should at least take part in an interaction or discussion of some kind where
one party has an intention and the other party expands or reacts to the intention.
In the same context, Montaigne talked about his own experience and how he learnt
Latin only through communication; he writes,” Without methods, without a book, without
grammar or rules, without a whip and without tears, I had learned a Latin as proper as that of
my schoolmaster”. It is obviously clear that this view is an anti-structural view; it is the view
which is referred to by Hilgard and Bower (1966) as “learning by doing” or “the experience
approach”, the view which puts the communicative factors as its starting point. The linguistJohn Firth, further, goes hand in hand with this idea when he considered focusing attention on
discourse as the main subject and context for language analysis. What‟s more, he insisted that
language should be studied in terms of sociocultural perspective and the context of its use,
based on the course, on the situation, the participants and their roles, and intentions.
As far as Howatt is concerned, there are two versions of CLT: a “strong” and a “weak”
version. He says: “there is, in a sense, a strong version of the communicative approach and a
weak version. The weak version which has become more or less standard practice in the last
ten years stresses the importance of providing learners with opportunities to use their English
for communicative purposes and, characteristically, attempts to integrate such activities into a
wider program of language teaching. The strong version of communicative teaching, on the
other hand, advances the claim that language is acquired through communication, so that it is
not merely a question of activating an existing but inert knowledge of the language, but of
stimulating the development of the language system itself. If the former could be described as
„learning to use English‟, the latter entails „using English to learn it.‟(1984:279).
will be more or less very interested enough to seek their own understandings and insights. The
meaning, additionally, will be sought through the questioning of the learners‟ own knowledge
and new discoveries. In this context, Bransford et al. says, “wisdom cannot be told”.
Likewise, Borich and Tombari (1997) define constructivism as “an approach to learning in
which learners are provided the opportunity to construct their own sense of what is being
learned by building internal connection or relationship among the ideas and facts being
taught.” As it is illustrated in the quote, Borich and Tombary, following Resnick direction,
assert that learning occurs when learners actively engage their cognitive structures in schema
building experiences. From another perspective, learners strive to make sense of the world
around them by relying and focusing on their pre-existing schemas. This idea is well
supported by Eggan and Kauchak in their following definition given to constructivism:” ….a
view of learning that says learners use their experiences to actively construct understandings
that make sense to them, rather than have understanding delivered to them in already
organised form”.
On the other hand, Thompson (2000) demonstrates that constructivism is not a theory
of learning but a model of knowing, and constructivism may be used to build a theory of
learning. In this respect, Giambatista Vico once said, “One only knows something if one can
explain it” (Yager, 1999). From the same perspective, Emmanuel Kant supported G. Vico andasserted,” humans are not passive information receivers. Humans are active information
receivers, they build network of information with their previous information and they
assimilate or accommodate new knowledge with the old information in order to build their
own understanding of the new information”. (Check, 1992).
More importantly, constructivism can be divided into two: social constructivism and
cognitive constructivism.
1) social constructivism
Social constructivism is a theory that is rooted from Vygotsky‟s psychosocial theory,
which holds within its folds that knowledge, or disciplines that have been built up are socially
human constructs. In other words, knowledge that has been built by the learners is not
transferred from teacher to student but rather constructed in student‟s mind. According to
Philips (2000, p.6), there are some factors such as politics¸ ideologies, Values, religious
beliefs, and economic self-interest, etc. that determine the form of this constructed
knowledge. These factors, therefore, affect the ways whereby learners shape and form their
own comprehension about their surrounding world.
As its name indicates, social constructivism focuses on knowledge at the level of
community; knowledge is socially constructed, and it is more or less the collaborative
achievement of persons engaged in the practices of a community. For social constructivists, to
learn is to participate within a community. They, in fact, argue that learning would be
impossible as long as they do not access to the practices, resources and members of the
community. Lave and Wenger support this argument and said, “Engaging in practice, rather
than being its object, may well be a condition for the effectiveness of learning”. (Lave and
Wenger, 1991. p.93). Their quote conveys obviously the idea that the process of taking part in
the ongoing activities of a specific community is a key and essential element to the learning
process. Their argument is akin to Vygotsk y‟s, which postulates that students should not be
separated from their own sociocultural context.
2) Cognitive constructivism.
As opposed to the social constructivist perspective that describes the mind as a
distributed entity that goes beyond the bounds of the body into the social environment,
cognitive constructivists present the mind in terms of the individual. Cognitive constructivism based on the work of Swiss developmental psychologist J. Piaget, approaches learning and
knowing from the perspective of the individual. Bruner (1956) in Woolfolk (2004) introduces
two terms with a view to communicate the most fundamental principles of cognitive
constructivism in teaching and learning in the classroom. These two terms are “discovery
learning” and “subject structure”. The goal, indeed, was to encourage and emphasize the
concept of learning and development of thinking. According to him, understanding the
structure of a subject being studied (subject structure), learning will be memorable, useful and
more meaningful. Besides, discovery learning helps students improve their own thinking in
the sense that the teacher dispenses examples and the students make intuitive guesses about
those examples until they find out the connections between the subject‟s structures . The
concept “discovery learning” is sometimes referred to as “inductive reasoning”. That is, by
using specific examples, students strive to formulate a general principle. Von Glasersfeld
supports this idea when he said, “the way we segment the flow of our experience, and the way
we relate the pieces we have isolated, is and necessarily remains an essentially subjective
matter. Hence, when we intend to stimulate and enhance a student‟s learning, we cannot
Mastery Learning represents a shift from the traditional normative evaluation, setting
up a criterion-referenced evaluation. The former judges the students‟ performance in the
classroom on the basis of how well his classmates performed in the test; that is, the teacher
who uses normative evaluation makes a comparison between students, creating a kind of
competition between them, and thus, every student tries to get the best grade. Besides,
normative evaluation tells us nothing about how much progress has been made by students.
This type of evaluation keeps students very secretive as regards their knowledge which
would, if shared, help the other students to enhance their performance. This model of
examination discourages cooperation and sharing among students.
By contrast, criterion-referenced evaluation is based on sharing and cooperation
between students. It is named criterion since it is based on students‟ achievement of the stated
objectives, it is defined from the very beginning that students should master the goals set up
by the teacher, and students are provided with multiple opportunities to master the stated
objectives. Besides, in criterion evaluation, possibly ninety percent of students attain an A
grade. This type of evaluation is a basic principle of Mastery Learning since it establishes
cooperation in the class instead of classifying students on the basis of a curve in which only a
couple of students get good marks and a great proportion of them get an average or below
average.
e) Basic Stages in Implementing Mastery Learning
It is of a paramount importance to summarize the elements of Mastery Learning
instruction which follow a logical chronological order, in an attempt to link them to the
philosophical assumptions of the theory. In practice, Mastery Learning is based on the
following elements:
Defining what is to be Learnt
The initial stage in implementing Mastery Learning involves the delineation of the
objectives students should learn. Thomas R. Guskey notes that the first step in implementing
Mastery Learning “is for teachers to review their instructional materials or curriculum to
decide what content should be learned by all students and to what level .”(Thomas R.
Guskey.1985, p: 11) In other words, the learning objectives are defined by the teacherdepending on whatever curricula or textbooks are available. The teacher decides what
Corrective activities are introduced after the teacher has conducted the first formative
test. These activities target the students who have not achieved mastery in the initial
instruction. It is a process of re-teaching that enables these students to become proficient as
their pairs in a particular task. We notice in figure 11 that all teachers (100%) provide
correctives to their students. However, figure 12 reveals that correctives are not provided only
to those who have not mastered the unit, but rather to the whole class. Nearly, all teachers,
89%, affirmed that they dedicate correctives to the whole group while only 11% admitted that
they provide correctives for those who have not achieved mastery.
Again, the time allocated to corrective activities varies: only 28% of teachers declaredthey spend two to four minutes in correctives, 33% of them admitted they allocate 30min and
39% announced they spend an hour in correctives.
As the above figures, 11, 12, 13, demonstrate, the issue of time management in
traditional methods of teaching handicaps individuals‟ performance and their overall
competence, and it contributes negatively in establishing a perpetual gap during the process of
learning and results in a kind of inequality among students who have probably the same
potential for success in a particular task if their backgrounds are taken into account.
Summative evaluation is usually held after covering several units, and it usually
takes, in Mastery Learning strategy, an hour, and hour and half or two hours sometimes. In
figure 23, it is apparent that the majority of teachers (86%) adopt this strategy to test their
students while 14% of the informants do not hold summative tests. How many units does this
summative test cover and how long does it last?
A. The number of units the summative test covers:
The number of informants Percentage
One unit 0 0%
Two units 4 22%
All the units the teacher
covers
14 78%
Total 18 100%
Figure: 24
Concerning the number of units the summative test covers, figure 24 reveals that the
majority of respondents (78%) cover all the units in the summative evaluation and 22% noted
that the only cover two units. It is implied from this table that nearly all teachers use
summative tests and cover all the units that they cover in class. What stands as impediment to
the overall proficiency in English is the fact that the final summative test is not founded on a
strong basis since the steps that preceded it are not well dealt with by most of the informants.
For instance, the first and the second formative tests do not take place on the basis of aconsistent strategy that respects the time devoted to the test which usually consumes much
Do you think that individual differences hinder the process of learning and
students overall competence in English proficiency
The number of informants PercentageYes 13 73%
No 5 27%
Total 18 100%
Figure: 29
Asked about whether individual differences hinder the process of learning and
students‟ overall competence in English proficiency, the majority of the informants stated that
individual differences really impede the process of learning and students competence. It is
deduced, thus, that nearly all teachers are aware of the influence of individual differences;however, most of them do not adopt a procedure that assist in melting down these individual
differences. Learning for mastery or Mastery Learning is a strategy that would probably solve
the problems of individual differences if teachers abide strictly by its consistent procedures
and that would probably minimize the achievement gap between students.
4. Overall Discussion
It is evident from the information shown in the tables above that the majority of
teachers of EFL admit that individual differences obstruct the process of learning and the
students‟ performance in class. However, although teachers are fully aware of these
differences, they still partially manage their classes on the basis of traditional methods which
are centered upon the objectives of the textbook to be fulfilled at the end of the term or at the
end of the year, widening the achievement gap between students who have different
backgrounds. Although traditional teaching methods may be effective in teaching EFL, its
strategies seem ineffective, especially when individual difference prevail among students. The
importance of Mastery Learning is that its procedure can be used while applying whatever
method or approach of teaching.
The questionnaires provided us with an insight about the procedures and steps
teachers adopt while they are teaching. We noticed first that most teachers prefer
Communicative Language Teaching (56%). The latter is recommended by the Ministry of
Education, and it sets qualifying students to achieve communicative competence and to be
able to interact in situations where English is used as its major goal. It is close in its principalsto Mastery Learning. However both Mastery Learning and Communicative Language