Before proceeding to new material, the student is to score 80-85 percent or above on a criterion-referenced test over the material covered in the LAP. The assumption underlying this requirement is that subject matter is hierarchical and that the material at each level must be mastered before undertaking subsequent course content. Such an assumption is certainly logical, and one
would expect research to substantiate mastery learning. Bloom (1968) gives no comparative statistics, but he does state that under the guidance of mastery learning procedures 20-80 percent of the students receive an A. In addition, he maintains that the students have more confidence in their ability to learn the material, they like the subject better, and they have a more positive self- concept. The percentage of A's given in a course is not synonymous with academic achievement, but the positive outcomes in the affective domain are desirable pluses to any approach.
The concept of mastery learning is an outgrowth of behavioral objectives and Carroll's definition of aptitude. The goal is to insist that each student achieve mastery of a small segment of material before moving on to a more complex level of work. On the surface, the concept of mastery learning appears to be the solution to all those difficulties encountered by students who get farther and farther behind because they are pushed into grappling with new concepts and new material before having mastered prerequisite information. Yet, mastery learning is subject to the same criticism as that directed at behavioral objectives and Carroll's definition of aptitude. Groff (1975) affirms that mastery learning underestimates the enormous complexities of the learning process. Too, he insists that forcing students to attempt to reach a level of mastery while studying materials beyond their capabilities may be dangerous to their mental health. Noblitt (1975) points out that if the time needed to attain mastery involves a period of time sufficiently lengthy to hinder the students' likelihood of being able to systematize their knowledge, then in actuality the language system is not being acquired.
Valdman (1975) views behavioral objectives, mastery learning, and the "obsession with error-free performance" which characterized programmed instruction and audio-lingual teaching as being interrelated. If the learner is viewed as a passive agent in which linguistic responses are to be conditioned, errors can be eliminated by careful selection of stimulus and response. However, the view of the learner as an active agent in learning postulates a model in which the errors made by the second-language learner are important, productive, and beneficial components of language learning.