Mastery Learning via game playing

Mastery learning offers sufficient time, attention and help from tutor or lecturer to every student. GBL without time-pressure challenges can also offer sufficient time and attention to each student, while transferring the role of helpful tutor to either a programmed virtual tutor, or a game master who knows how to facilitate game playing sessions.

Mastery learning was accused for causing Robin Hood effects, in which additional time and support were given to students who are relatively slower in knowledge and skill mastery, at the expense of quick learners' time. GBL with benchmarked standard (good enough mastery) and enhanced standard (excellent mastery) can overcome the issue of Robin Hood effects. A rubric which explicitly defines and describes both standards can be shown to all students. All of them are encouraged to achieve the enhanced standard, which would involve supporting weak learners to master specific knowledge and skills. Those who achieved the enhanced standard would be regarded as "master", a status given to people who can teach (see the origin of Master's degree).

Criticism on mastery learning and how to counter back:

Mueller (1976) asserted that mastery learning:

(a) takes much of the responsibility for learning away from students, who may end up not knowing how to learn independently; 

$$ in GBL, students have to play game or make games themselves, experience learning, construct knowledge and develop skills in the games.

(b) requires non-fixed-time instructional units or greatly liberalized time allocations; 

$$ this is actually a strength of GBL, through flexible education, learn anytime anywhere.

(c) makes faster learner "wait around" while slower learner catch up, unless the faster learners are motivated to spend their time achieving objectives beyond the pre-specified ones; 

(d) commits a major part of finite instructional resources -- corrective effort, teacher aides, peer tutoring, and alternative learning materials -- to slower students and 

(e) assumes that everything in an instructional unit must be learned equally well by almost all students, although beyond basic skills and hierarchical subjects (such as mathematics) this assumption is hard to defend (p. 467).