Mastery Learning Reconsidered

Abstract

Several recent reviews and meta-analyses have claimed extraordinariiy positive effects of mastery learning oo student tchievement, ,ad Bllom (1984atchievement, ,ad Bllom ( , 1984b hah hypothesized that mastery-based treatments sill lsoone able to produce "2-sigma" (i.e., 2 standard deviation) increases in achievement. This article examines the literature on achievement effectt sf practtcal applications of group-based mastery learning in elementary and secondary schools over periods of at least 4 weeks, using a review technique, "best-evidencc synthesis, " "hich combines features of metaanalytic and traditional narrative reviews. The heview found essentially no evidence to support the effectiveness of group-based mastery learning on standandized achievement measures. On experimenter-made measures, effectt were generally yositive but moderate in magnitude, with little evidence that effectt maintained over ttme. These results are discussed in light of the coverage versus mastery dilemma posed by group-based mastery learning.The term "mastery learning" refers to a large and diverse category of instructional methods. The principal defining characteristic of mastery learning methods is the establishment of a criterion level of performance held to represent "mastery" of a given skill or concept, frequent assessment of student progress toward the mastery criterion, and provision of corrective instruction to enable students who do not initially meet the mastery criterion to do so on later parallel assessments (see Block & Anderson, 1975; Bloom, 1976). Bloom (1976) also includes an emphasis on appropriate use of such instructional variables as cues, participation, feedback, and reinforcement as elements of mastery learning, but these are not uniquely defining characteristics; rather, what defines mastery learning approaches is the organization of time and resources to ensure that most students are able to master instructional objectives.There are three primary forms of mastery learning. One, called the Personalized System of Instruction (PSI) or the Keller Plan (Keller, 1968), is used primarily at the postsecondary level. In this form of mastery learning, unit objectives are established for a course of study and tests are developed for each. Students may take the test (or parallel forms of it) as many times as they wish until they achieve a passing score. To do this, students typically work on self-instructional materials and/or work with peers to learn the course content, and teachers may give lectures

Teachers' Perceptions and Expectations and the Black-White Test Score Gap

“…Some are more successful than others. See, for example, Slavin's (1987) review of the literature of mastery learning.…”

Earning teachers’ commitment to curriculum reform

“…Typically, as well, educational innovations are advocated on theoretical or ideological grounds. As evaluation evidence mounts after years of use, many innovations fail to live up to claims made by their early advocates; again, whole language instruction is a current example of this (Stahl & Miller, 1989), as are word processing (Bangert-Downs, 1993) and group-based mastery learning (Slavin, 1987). Huberman (1988) reminds us that most veteran teachers experience pressure to implement a large handful of these substantial innovations over the course of their careers.…”

The Effect of Mastery Learning Model with Reflective Thinking Activities on Medical Students’ Academic Achievement: An Experimental Study

“…In another study by DeWeese (2012), the effects of mastery learning correctives on academic achievement were investigated and found no differences between individualized corrective group and control group in terms of achievement or student affect toward content or teacher. Besides, one review of the research on mastery learning, contrary to all others, indicated that the process had essentially no effect on student achievement (Slavin 1987) but with a close inspection by scholars and practitioners well-equipped in mastery learning, questionable aspects of this review were elucidated. The positive effects of mastery learning are not restricted only to measures of student achievement.…”