• below 60% you haven't learned; when you encounter the material again you'll be starting over again [ed.: hoo boy. we're looking at a big, honking Phase 4 math reteach-fest this summer.] [UPDATE 12-6-06: Actually, we're not. C. is now much faster at learning math; he's managing to absorb and, I think, hang onto some of the content in Phase 4 Grade 7.]

• high mastery to a standard of 75% to 90% on original learning plus one relearning erases the correlation between IQ and memory
  

• below 60% you haven't learned; when you encounter the material again you'll be starting over again [ed.: hoo boy. we're looking at a big, honking Phase 4 math reteach-fest this summer.]

• high-IQ allows one to recall more after one exposure: "higher-ability students tend to remember more, as society has come to expect"

Standards and Mastery Learning : Aligning Teaching and Assessment So All Children Can Learn by J. Ronald Gentile, James P. Lalley.

I'll have more later. The preface and first chapter (pdf file)<fon5 size=2) are available online.

I'm ordering the book.

Table 1.2 shows the remarkable results regarding intellectual traits and memory.5 Under nonmastery conditions—that is, a single exposure for original learning, recall after 7 days, a single relearning opportunity, and then recall after 14 and 28 days—the correlations between intellectual traits and recall are all positive and significant. That is, higher-ability students tend to remember more, as society has come to expect.

In stark contrast, imposing a mastery standard of 75% to 90% correct on original learning and then again at relearning renders those standardized intellectual measures nonpredictors of how much is recalled: The correlations hover around zero and are all nonsignificant.

What mastery to a high standard can do, in summary, is virtually bypass the effects of IQ for specified educational objectives. What is recalled about educational lessons is more dependent on how well the material is mastered than on such traits as rate of learning or general intellectual abilities.

Learning, in other words, occurs in phases or episodes, and this original learning phase includes (a) the readiness component (described above), (b) learning to initial mastery, and (c) forgetting. Although forgetting has not been mentioned up to now, it is clear that forgetting is the inevitable result of initial learning, even when a high mastery standard of, say, 80% to 100% correct is required. When the degree of original learning is less than mastery, say, 60% to 80%, then forgetting is likely to occur more rapidly or be more complete. If it is less than 60%, it is questionable to speak of forgetting at all, because learning was inadequate in the first place.

Students show that they understand this principle implicitly when they ask, “Why do we have to learn this stuff anyway? We’ll only forget it.” Our typical answers, “Because it will be on the test” or “Because I said so,” are not satisfactory. In fact, we have been able to find only one satisfactory answer to the question, and it was supplied in one of the first empirical studies of learning/forgetting (Ebbinghaus, 1885/1964). The answer is that relearning is faster—that is, there is a considerable savings of time in relearning compared with original learning. Furthermore, there is a positive relationship between amount of time saved in relearning and the degree of original learning, with essentially no savings when original learning is below some acceptable threshold (which we earlier argued was 60% or less).

Through sheer serendipity, I've stumbled across The Book That Has The Answers:

-- CatherineJohnson - 24 Jun 2006

Back to: Main Page.