Mastery Learning: An Effective Teaching Strategy (By Vahid Motamedi) Research Studies about Mastery Learning Over the years many research studies based on mastery learning have been conducted. Studies ranging in population from elementary through university and in some cases using educational technology have taken place. Whiting and Render (1984) provided research findings to support the hypothesis that mastery learning does produce successful learning experiences for at least 80% of the students in their program. Their study also indicated very strong positive outcomes in the affective domain with strong indications of satisfaction and pride in the learning accomplishments along with a steady increase in enrollment in the classes comprising the study. A high level of retention was illustrated with students motivated to remediate unlearned materials even though at times they were not required to retake a test. The authors made a strong case for the use of mastery learning while at the same time they clearly outlined some of the difficulties encountered in the “corporate culture” when such a program is implemented. Guskey and Gates (1986) conducted a research synthesis of studies of group based mastery learning in elementary and secondary classrooms. Twenty seven studies were selected for the synthesis. Guskey and Gates reported “that without exception the studies showed positive effects on a broad range of student learning outcomes, including student achievement, retention of learned material, involvement in learning activities, and student affect.” The synthesis revealed that the magnitude of the effect on student achievement varied widely across studies. Several of the studies investigated variables related to time. Although Guskey and Gates contend that student learning rates are alterable as Bloom’s model hypothesizes, their synthesis report does state that “Arlin (1984a, & 1984b) argues that learning rate is a fairly stable and unalterable characteristic.” Lai and Biggs (1994) conducted a study with educationally disadvantaged students in grade 9 biology classes. Students were classified into surface biased and deep biased. The results of the study indicated that mastery learning benefited surface biased students while the deep biased students’ interest levels tended to progressively diminish using mastery learning. Thus deep and surface biased learners increasingly diverge in both performance and attitude, where surface learners did better than deep learners from unit to unit. Lai and Biggs stated that surface students seemed to be motivated by the success they have obtained; a success that is a rare event to these students. Ritchie and Thorkildsen (1994) used the videodisc-based instruction method “to examine the factor of accountability in mastery learning programs. The videodisc-based instruction was chosen to help minimize differences in instructional materials, instructional time, and instructional delivery.” Results of this study indicated a significant difference in achievement test scores. Two possible reasons for the significant increase among mastery learning students were such that their awareness of participating in a mastery learning program quiz and test results will directly influence their progression and re-mediation of ensuing instructional material. Kulik, Jaksa, and Kulik (1978) conducted a study which demonstrated that the high student achievement was an outcome of personalized instruction. They noted that this instruction has at least four sources. The first important factor is PSIs high mastery standard. The second factor is the large number of unit quizzes. The third is timing of feedback which influences student achievement in Personalized System of Instruction (PSI) courses. The final critical factor is the total amount of review built into PSI courses. Semb (1980) referred to several studies that have compared Kellers (1968) personalized system of instruction to more traditional lecture methods. The result of these studies demonstrated that PSI has produced higher levels of academic achievement and higher student ratings. According to Klishis, Hursh, and Klishis (1980) PSI has repeatedly been shown to be more effective than the traditional lecture approach. Atkisson (cited in Klishis, Hursh, & Klishis, 1980) conducted a study with sixth-grade students in a PSI spelling class. He found that these students completed their work early, giving them time to work at building their vocabulary skills. Klishis, Hursh, and Klishis (1980) demonstrated in an experiment that PSI results in more effective learning of spelling in elementary classrooms. Results showed that students were more successful in mastering content and faster in completing the course than they were when taught by traditional methods. They also found that attitudinally students enjoyed PSI more than the conventional approach and enjoyed serving as proctors. According to Kulik, Kulik, and Carmichael (1974), Keller reported that students rated the personalized courses as much more enjoyable than traditionally taught courses. The authors stated that students are highly pleased with this way of teaching and learning (p. 379). Kulik, Kulik, and Carmichael found that 72% of students in nuclear engineering, 91% in electrical engineering, 64% in mechanical engineering, and 59% in operations research considered PSI better than the lecture method. They presented results of 15 studies in which examination results in Keller and conventional courses were compared. According to the authors of the 15 studies, higher performance for the Keller section was reported in 11 of them. The authors also stated that content learning under the Keller plan always equals, and most often exceeds, content learning under the lecture method (p. 383).
Posted on: Sun, 30 Nov 2014 00:23:24 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015