{"id":18757,"date":"2024-02-29T10:01:59","date_gmt":"2024-02-29T15:01:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/aurora-institute.org\/?post_type=cw_post&p=18757"},"modified":"2024-02-29T13:19:57","modified_gmt":"2024-02-29T18:19:57","slug":"beyond-packaging-manifesting-mastery-based-learning-in-the-classroom-at-tywls-of-astoria","status":"publish","type":"cw_post","link":"https:\/\/aurora-institute.org\/cw_post\/beyond-packaging-manifesting-mastery-based-learning-in-the-classroom-at-tywls-of-astoria\/","title":{"rendered":"Beyond Packaging: Manifesting Mastery-Based Learning in the Classroom at TYWLS of Astoria"},"content":{"rendered":"

Shortly after its founding in 2006, <\/span>The Young Women\u2019s Leadership School (TYWLS) of Astoria<\/span><\/a> shifted to a mastery-based learning model to create a more equitable and transparent grading system. In addition to increasing clarity around grading, we believed a mastery approach, which we use synonymously with <\/span>competency-based education<\/span><\/a> (CBE), had the potential to support the creation of learner-centered classrooms. We envisioned learning experiences where transparency about grades and shared expectations would foster student agency and, in turn, help build a school students felt was made for them.<\/span><\/p>\n

The operative term here is \u201cpotential,\u201d as adopting a mastery-based learning model doesn’t guarantee an immediate transition to student-centered learning and equity. Successful school-wide implementation is a gradual process that unfolds over time requiring sustained effort.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"Cover<\/p>\n

The development of the <\/span>Teacher Mastery Handbook<\/span><\/a>, as discussed in the <\/span>first installment of this series<\/span><\/a>, was fueled by our commitment to actualizing the foundational principles that initially guided our school toward CBE.<\/span><\/p>\n

As we endeavor to bridge theory with practice, we remain vigilant about what I term the “packaging of CBE.” This refers to instances where schools implement CBE systems and structures, giving the appearance of a competency-based education approach, while classroom practices may still align more with traditional methods.<\/span><\/p>\n

Given these considerations, it’s unsurprising that the largest section of our Teacher Mastery Handbook is dedicated to mastery implementation at the classroom level.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

As a strategic response to the dynamic nature of mastery-based learning, we developed a systematic approach to mastery implementation with four phases. This approach provides realistic benchmarks for teachers to meet them where they are in their professional journey. The phases also assist administrators and instructional coaches in offering targeted support and establishing realistic expectations for progress evaluation.<\/span><\/p>\n

Identifying an Entry Point to Mastery-Based Learning<\/span><\/h2>\n

The Mastery Implementation at the Classroom Level section opens with a self-assessment tool consisting of a series of questions. Teachers’ responses will guide them to the corresponding phase and page in the handbook.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"Teachers in <\/span>Phase 0: Introduction <\/b>begin by deeply studying and understanding mastery-based learning and the TYWLS shared outcomes and departmental outcome targets. This exploration typically starts before school commences with the guided support of a facilitator or mentor teacher.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Teachers in Phase 0 will very quickly find themselves in <\/span>Phase 1: Immersion<\/b>, immersing themselves in established school-wide, mastery-based learning practices. This does not signal moving on from or mastery of phase 0. While phased, this is a recursive process. Even teachers in Phase 2 or 3 continue to engage in the mindset work and develop their understanding of mastery-based education.<\/span><\/p>\n

Instead of designing a new curriculum, we ask that teachers in Phase 1 utilize previously designed and\/or vetted curriculum. That way they are able to experience the components of a rigorous curriculum created with \u201cmastery-in-mind\u201d that they can replicate in the future.<\/span><\/p>\n

Teachers in <\/span>Phase 2: Implementation <\/b>intentionally map out their curriculum, plan project-based learning (PBL) units, and design daily lessons to ensure students receive multiple and varied opportunities to demonstrate mastery of the course outcome targets. Their curriculum is intentional, responsive, and student-centered. They adjust lessons based on individual and group trends in student mastery and create opportunities for students to play a greater role in assessing their work and driving feedback conversations. \"\"<\/span><\/p>\n

To support teachers in this phase, the handbook includes a step-by-step guide on designing or co-designing units with what we call \u201cmastery-in-mind\u201d to build a curriculum that seamlessly aligns with the principles of mastery-based learning.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

A crucial step in this process involves identifying (in advance) the ‘assessable moments’ or opportunities within a unit or project for students to practice the prioritized outcome targets. These specific moments or checkpoints along the way toward completion of the performance tasks or culminating project provide students with an opportunity to receive feedback and monitor their progress toward mastery. The handbook recommends that teachers create an ‘Assessable Moments Matrix,’ a structured tool to systematically plan and document these critical junctures. This matrix offers a comprehensive overview and becomes an resource for fostering a continuous cycle of assessment, feedback, and improvement throughout the learning journey.<\/span><\/p>\n

Building on this structured approach to assessment, we firmly believe that \u201c<\/span>without personalization<\/span><\/a>,\u201d competency-based education “cannot guarantee that students will receive the instruction and support they need to learn.” In <\/span>Phase 3: Innovation<\/b>, teachers extend the design process outlined in Phase 2, actively seeking additional ways to engage students in the collaborative creation of units and projects. They emphasize personalized learning pathways to provide a range of opportunities for students to demonstrate and generate evidence of mastery. \"\"<\/span><\/p>\n

Providing Concrete, Practical Examples and Room to Grow<\/span><\/h2>\n

When we shared an early draft of these phases with our colleagues, one teacher emphasized “personalized learning pathways” and \u201cstudent input\u201d and observed that, without specific examples, these terms seemed somewhat abstract, like \u201cmagic tricks.\u201d Several pages of the handbook are therefore dedicated to illustrating how to personalize or individualize learning at the curriculum, unit, and lesson levels. For example:\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n