ABSTRACT The main purpose of the study was to gather, analyze and interpret the perceptions of the students about mastery learning (ML) held by 240 students randomly selected from each of the populations of different faculties in Guilan University. Guilan University was chosen because the researchers have some valuable experiences about English learning and are familiar with students’ weakness in English learning. The students of high ability were allocated to “A” and “B” classes, average to “C” and “D” classes and low to “E” and “F” classes respectively. Two Academic Staff Members were assigned to teach the six classes of English. Students could take 3 classes with each academic. Results showed that based on research results on deep and surface, biased learners increasingly which became surface learners did worse compare with deep learners. On the other hand, surface students of low ability seem to be motivated to study as they are given more chances to secure a pass. Thus, although the findings of this paper indicate that mastery learning promotes better quantitative results in English for surface learners, there are dangers. One of the main aims of learning to increase higher level cognitive processes seems actually to be discouraged in this mode.
Cite this paper
Sadeghi, A. & Sadeghi, A. (2012). Relevance of Mastery Learning (ML) in Teaching of English (Case Study of the University of Guilan, Iran). Creative Education, 3, 41-44. doi: 10.4236/ce.2012.31007.
 Biggs, J. B. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Hawthorn, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research.
 Block, J. H., & Anderson, L. W. (1975). Mastery learning in classroom instruction. New York: Macmillan.
 Bloom, B. S. (1976). Human characteristics and school learning. New York: McGraw-hill.
 Bloom, B. S. (1981). Human characteristics and School learning. New York: McGraw-hill.
 Cano, F. (2007). Approaches to learning and study or chestrations in high school students. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 22, 131-151. doi:10.1007/BF03173518
 Cohen, S. A. (1977). Instructional systems in reading: A report on the effects of a curriculum design based on systems model. Reading World, 16, 158-171. doi:10.1080/19388077709557358
 Cole, N. (1990). Conceptions of educational achievement. Educational Researcher, 19, 2-7.
 Corno, L., & Mandinach, E. B. (1983). The role of cognitive engagement in classroom learning and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 18, 88-108. doi:10.1080/00461528309529266
 Dense D., & Sorrell, J. (1995). Mastery learning in public schools. Paper prepared for PSY 702: Conditions of learning. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University
 Guskey, T. R. (1985). Implementing mastery learning. Belmont, CA: Wads Worth.
 Gus key, T. R. (2007). Closing achievement gaps: Revisiting Benjamin’s. Bloom’s learning for mastery. Journal of Advanced Academics, 19, 8-31.
 Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41, 111-127.
 Hulleman, C. S. (2007) The role of utility value in the development of interest and achievement. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin- Madison, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation.
 Kulik, C. L. C., Kulik, J. A., & Bangert-Drowns, J. (1990). Effectiveness of mastery learning programs: A meta analysis. Review of educational research, 60, 265-299.
 Marsh, H. W., & Roche, L. A. (2000).Effects of grading leniency and low workload on students’ evaluations of teaching: Popular myth, bias, validity, or innocent bystanders? Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 202-228. doi:10.1037/0022-06184.108.40.206
 Robinson, C., & Hullinger, H. (2008). New benchmarks in higher education: Student engagement in online learning. Journal of Education for Business, 84, 101-109. doi:10.3200/JOEB.84.2.101-109
 Tagg, J. (2003). The learning paradigm college. Boston, MA: Anker.
 Zimmerman, B. J., & Dibenedetto, M. K. (2008). Mastery learning and assessment: Implications for students and teachers in an era of high stakes-testing. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 206-216