The role of a feedback-corrective procedure in developing mathematics achievement and self concept in desegregated classrooms

Mevarech, Zemira R.

doi:10.1016/0191-491x(86)90009-x

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In light of the extraordinary positive effects found in this study, more than three times the median for all the studies in Table 2, it is useful to consider what may be unique about the Mevarech (1986) study. One important factor is that only two teachers were involved in each treatment, and that while students were randomly assigned to treatments, teachers were not assigned at random.…”

Section: Evidence For the "Curricular Focus"claimmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…This excluded comparisons such as those in two studies by Mevarech (1985aMevarech ( , 1985b) evaluating a combination of mastery learning and cooperative learning, and comparisons involving enhancement of cognitive entry behaviors (e.g., Leyton, 1983). Mastery learning was the only or principal intervention.…”

Section: Mastery Learning Reconsideredmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is very little known about what would be required to make group-based mastery learning instructionally effective; the Mevarech (1980Mevarech ( , 1986 and Dolan and Kellam (1987) studies provide some clues along these lines, but much more needs to be known. More studies of practical, long-term applications of mastery learning assessing the effects of these programs on broadly based measures of achievement that register coverage as well as mastery are especially needed; idiosyncratic features of the seven studies that used standardized tests preclude any interpretation of those studies as evidence that group-based mastery learning is not effective.…”

Section: Practical Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Mastery Learning Reconsidered

Slavin

1987

Review of Educational Research

154

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

show abstract

Section: Evidence For the "Curricular Focus"claimmentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Mastery Learning Reconsideredmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Practical Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Mastery Learning Reconsidered

Slavin

1987

Review of Educational Research

154

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the typical (or median) case, the experimental group required 4% more instructional time than did the control group. 1985Cabezon, 1984Clark, Guskey, & Benninga, 1983Dillashaw & Okey, 19831.16 Fehlen, 1976Guskey, Benninga, & Clark, 1984Honeycutt, 1974Hymel & Mathews, 1980Jones, Monsaas, & Katims, 1979Katims, Smith, Steele, & Wick, 1977Kersh, 1970Lewis, 1984Lueckmeyer & Chiappetta, 1981Martin & Srikameswaran, 1974Mevarech, 1980 1.04 Mevarech, 1986Myers, 1976 1.05 Okey, 1974Sheldon & Miller, 1973Slavin & Karweit, 1984Yeany, Dost, & Matthew, 1980 , White, 1974 Note. ES = effect size.…”

Section: Instructional Timementioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of Mastery Learning Programs: A Meta-Analysis

Kulik

Bangert-Drowns

1990

Review of Educational Research

412

184

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The training teachers receive in mastery learning, for example, is known to vary from one program in which teachers viewed a 45-minute videotape and were provided with little or no follow-up, to another program where teachers took part in a 3-week summer training program with extensive follow-up activities (Mc-Donald, 1982). When mastery learning is implemented well, however, as in the case of the Mevarech (1986) and Dolan and Kellam (1987) studies, results are typically very impressive. In programs where creative, attractive, well-designed corrective activities are paired with exciting, challenging, high-level enrichment activities, results are likely to be better still.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Rethinking Mastery Learning Reconsidered

Guskey

1987

Review of Educational Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The role of a feedback-corrective procedure in developing mathematics achievement and self concept in desegregated classrooms

Cited by 7 publications

References 8 publications

Mastery Learning Reconsidered

Mastery Learning Reconsidered

Effectiveness of Mastery Learning Programs: A Meta-Analysis

Rethinking Mastery Learning Reconsidered

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About