What is mastery? How do we measure the mastery of an individual standard? When is mastery supposed to happen for a student? These are questions I have heard from a plethora of educators over the years. I believe that mastery, in any content area, can be defined with Surface, Deep and Transfer learning, as coined by John Hattie and his colleagues. I have taken the idea of the three learning phases established by Hattie (2012, 2016, 2018) and extrapolated these phases into measures of mastery related to the priority level of each standard.  

Surface level standards.

These are standards identified as low priority for a specific grade level. Surface level standards are often used to introduce a concept in that grade level, however the standard is often extended in subsequent grade levels. These standards are not owned by the grade level for which they are listed in. They are owned by another grade level. They should be taught briefly as general knowledge. For example, if ‘stating the main idea’ were a surface level standard then students would be able to state, in their own words, ‘what is a main idea?’. Not, what is THE main idea, rather what does ‘main idea’ mean, in general.

Deep learning: Medium priority level standards.

This phase of learning is all about modeling. We teach deep learning concepts by going through surface learning then modeling the ‘how’ and the ‘why’ of the standard. If we further use the example of ‘stating the main idea’, a student would read a text and be able to consistently find the main idea in their own words. We would, of course, model how to ‘state the main idea’; as a result, students would be able to find the main idea utilizing the same kind of text we used to model in class. Think of the Gradual Release Model: I do, we do, you do.

One of the major issues with K-12 teaching and learning is that we often stop with Deep Learning. Surface and deep questions make up 100% of most K-12 assessments. However, state assessments ask transfer level questions, which is why students struggle on standardized assessments. The classroom or formative assessments (NWEA, IReady, Clearsight) generally stop at Surface and Deep level questions of the identified high priority level standards.

Transfer learning: High priority standards.

This is about NOT modeling. We don’t explicitly teach transfer level other than to practice transfer tasks. Going further with the main idea concept, we would model ‘state the main idea’ and ask students to replicate the model to achieve Deep Learning. Keep in mind we have modeled with a certain type of text. To reach Transfer Learning, a student would be presented with an unknown text or type of text (different from what was modeled) then asked to find the main idea. For example, all of your models may be non-fiction text, but when assessing for Transfer Learning, you ask the students to use a poem. Transfer Learning defines mastery for high priority standards.  

When to expect mastery?

Mastery should not be expected for all standards, only the high priority standards for that specific grade level.  Additionally, mastery should be expected at the END of the school year. We should never expect mastery after we conclude a chapter or unit.  Resultantly, mastery is measured by transfer learning tasks (no modeling).  Students are consistently asked to make connections with the content throughout the school year, as well as asked to complete transfer learning tasks.  Mastery occurs for different students at different times.  We need to honor the variations in the timing of student mastery and continue to spiral content to support mastery at the END of the school year.  Who masters basketball the first time they play the sport? No one that I have ever met.  Why do we expect the same from students?

Stay tuned for my next blog post that will address how this concept of Surface, Deep and Transfer Learning affects classroom assessments.

Research Basis
Almarode, J., Fisher, D., Thunder, K., Hattie, J., & Frey, N. (2019). Teaching Mathematics in the Visible Learning Classroom, Grades K-2. Corwin Press.
Frey, N., Fisher, D., & Hattie, J. (2018). Developing “assessment capable” learners. Educational Leadership, 75(5), 46-51.
Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Hattie, J. (2016). Visible learning for literacy, grades K-12: Implementing the practices that work best to accelerate student learning. Corwin Press.
Hattie, J., Fisher, D., Frey, N., Gojak, L. M., Moore, S. D., & Mellman, W. (2016). Visible learning for mathematics, grades K-12: What works best to optimize student learning. Corwin Press.
Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. Routledge.