Mastery
Learning: An Effective Teaching Strategy
Vahid Motamedi
Assistant
Professor
Department of
Educational Technology
Faculty of
Psychology & Education
Tarbiat Moallem University
Mofateh Avenue
Tehran, Iran
15614
Abstract
Mastery learning is used in order
to advance an individual’s potential for learning. Compared to traditional
learning models, sufficient time, attention, and help are afforded to each
student. This paper investigates the mastery learning model and changes that
have taken place in its use as an effective teaching strategy. It also provides
a comparison of Bloom’s and Keller’s approaches as well as a critique of both
approaches using historical data. This paper shows that by applying mastery
learning as a teaching strategy, students achieve higher learning and better
academic performance.
Key words: Mastery Learning,
Learning, Teaching Strategy, Personalized System of Instruction
Introduction
Allowing students the opportunity
to achieve mastery of content at different time intervals has proven to be an
effective method of increasing student learning. This paper will investigate the
mastery learning model and changes that have taken place in its use as an
effective teaching strategy. It also provides a comparison of Bloom’s and
Keller’s approaches as well as a critique of both approaches using historical
data. By definition, mastery learning is a method of instruction where the focus
is on the role of feedback in learning. Furthermore, mastery learning refers to
a category of instructional methods which establishes a level of performance
that all students must “master” before moving on to the next unit (Slavin, 1987). Thus, through one or more trials, students
have to achieve a specified level of content knowledge prior to progression on
to a next unit of instruction.
Background
Information
Mastery learning though strongly
influenced by the development of instructional technology is not, however, a new
concept (Bloom, 1976; Wentling, 1973). Some principles
of mastery learning originated with Aristotle and other ancient Greek
philosophers. Furthermore, the concept that most students can learn everything
that is being taught, if given sufficient time, goes back into the previous
century (Block, 1973; Bloom, 1976).
Mastery learning was first
introduced into the American educational system over seventy years ago. However,
during the 1920s, only a few schools in America were using mastery
learning. Washburne
(1922) stated, “With the development of the achievement test movement, we may
now make units of achievement the constant factor, varying the time to fit the
individual capacities of the children.”
According to Block (1971), in 1922 there was an attempt by Washburn and
others to produce mastery in students' learning. This
plan was known as the Winnetka Plan, in which "primarily self-instructional
practice materials were used, although the teacher occasionally tutored
individuals or small groups" (p. 4). A further attempt was made in 1926 by
Morrison in which "a variety of correctives were used -- for example,
re-teaching, tutoring, restructuring the original learning activities, and
redirecting student study habits" (p. 4). Block stated that Morrison's method
was successful in the 1930s. However, because of a lack of technology,
Morrison's idea of mastery learning failed to be used by teachers across the
nation.
In the early 1960s the idea of
mastery learning was revived in the form of programmed instruction. Programmed
instruction derived initially from work conducted by B. F. Skinner was further
developed by other behaviorists. This program was similar to mastery learning in
the sense that the focus was on the role of feedback in learning and on
individualized learning. Also, like the original mastery learning model, this
method of instruction allowed students to move at their own
pace and receive instant feedback on their current level of
mastery.
Founders of Mastery
Learning
Both Bloom and Carroll are
credited with formulating the idea of mastery learning, though many of its
elements were strongly influenced by Washburn and Morrison in the 1920s and
behaviorists in the 1960s. As cited in Carroll (1963), Bloom came up with an
important component of instruction which is time. In Carroll’s theory learning
is a function of time spent divided by the time needed (Davis & Sorrell,
1995). According to Carroll, the differences in aptitude among students are due
to the amount of time spent in learning the material. Carroll (cited in Block
& Anderson, 1975) defines aptitude as "a measure of learning rate, i.e. as a
measure of the amount of time the student would require to learn a given level
under ideal instructional conditions" (p. 2). According to Davis and Sorrell
(1995), Carroll indicated that if the student will make the effort to learn a
task by allowing himself or herself the time that the student requires for
individual learning then he or she will succeed. Therefore, in a given test, the
only thing that varies is student performance.
In the late 1960s, Bloom's
"Learning for Mastery" focused attention on the philosophy of mastery learning.
Bloom interpreted Carroll's ideas and philosophy of learning in terms of mastery
learning. He stated that the mastery learning proponent believes that
intelligence and aptitude are not the best indicators of potential achievement.
Furthermore, Bloom (1976, 1979, & 1980) pointed out that “cognitive entry
characteristics” (specific knowledge, abilities, and skills), which are
necessary prerequisites to a particular learning task, are better predictors of
later achievement. These characteristics were seen as identifiable and alterable
by Bloom. In addition, with continual academic success, Bloom felt that
“affective entry characteristics” (attitude, self confidence, and motivation)
would improve over time. According to Bloom “cognitive entry characteristics,”
“affective entry characteristics,” and quality of instruction determine the rate
of learning for each individual. Bloom along with Anderson (1976), Block (1973
& 1979), Guskey and Gates (1986), and Walberg
(1984) argue that under the mastery learning approach, differences in learning
rates will decrease and can approach zero. Thus, as students master the
prerequisite skills for each new unit the need for corrective instruction will
progressively reduce on each succeeding unit (Bloom, 1976,
1980).
Bloom (1968) is known as the
individual recognized for the theoretical formulation of the mastery model. His
prediction was that 95% of the students taught by the mastery approach would
achieve at a level that had previously been reached by only 5%. He suggested
that learning outcomes in most all subject areas can be enhanced through the
mastery learning method. Over time, the model of mastery learning, developed by
Bloom, began to take on a number of different variables. According to Bloom,
every mastery learning program divides instruction into
small units. Feedback is always a
part of mastery learning where students are given an opportunity to practice
what they have learned and are given corrective feedback (Motamedi & Sumrall, 2000).
The idea of "cognitive objective"
was originated by Bloom. Mastery is defined in terms of objectives. Students
will be able to perform at least 90% or higher on a test. According to Bloom's
theory of mastery learning diagnosis is required. For example, if a student is
having problems with his studies, the cause needs to be found. Instruction
should be supplemented with correctives such as tutoring, additional practice,
small group study, games, or even re-teaching the material. The time is always
allowed to vary.
Traditionally, many teachers
believe that intelligence and aptitude have determined the individual’s
potential for learning. Bloom (1974a, 1976, & 1980) states that all too
often, intelligence and aptitude scores have determined opportunities for
further education, student support and encouragement, and even quality of
interaction between teacher and student. Hence, students with high scores have
been the ones to whom the teachers have directed most of their attention.
However, in the mastery learning model, Bloom stated that teacher-student
relationships are greatly altered and the potential of low achievers is
increased.
Bloom recognized that one aspect
of mastery learning is learning in sequence, where sequencing is described as
hierarchical. Thus, mastery of each step prior to advancing to the next step is
essential. This concept goes back to the behaviorists and Skinner in 1954. The
learning of most complex behavior rests upon learning a sequence of less complex
component behaviors. If we are learning algebra, for example, an understanding
of later material requires a complete understanding of earlier material. This is
related to the sequential nature of mastery learning. A student cannot take the
next step until that individual has fully mastered the previous material. Slavin and Karweit (1984) refer to
Bloom (1976) in his claim that mastery learning "focuses primarily on students'
abilities to understand instruction by attempting to insure that all students
have mastered the previous skill before attempting the next" (p. 726). Jensen
(2006) also supports mastery learning wherein a student who masters a skill or
subject moves on to the next level of learning. In this process slow learners
are not kept back and gifted students would perform to their own higher
capacities.
Bloom was not without criticism,
though few educators who are familiar with the mastery learning approach deny
that it can provide some positive effects. However, the claim of mastery
learning theorists that achievement variability and time variability can be
minimized simultaneously has created considerable controversy (Arlin, 1984b). Whereas, Bloom’s 1976 book on mastery
learning has been described as “possibly the most significant book of its
decade” [Havighurst, 1976 (cited by Arlin, 1984b)], Glass and Smith (1978) suggest that Bloom’s
claims are mere educational rhetoric. Others call his claims of vanishing
differences “mythological statements” which deny reality and a psychological
trap” which will entice teachers to attempt unfeasible goals (Arlin, 1984b).
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 PSI's 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 Keller's (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).
A Comparison of Bloom’s and
Keller’s Approaches
Similarities
One of the similarities is that
students are capable of learning well.
It is the task of the teacher to design his instruction. The teacher
should have a set of objectives for students to follow. Both strategies assume
that the course should be broken into smaller learning units so that there is a
better interaction between students and the teacher. Both of these approaches
take the same position on individual student performance. Individual student
performance should be based on “absolute performance” rather than on “relative
performance” (Block, 1974).
Differences
Bloom and Keller both agree that
each student must master each part of the course. But Bloom believes that
mastery of the parts is not the same as mastery of the whole. He bases a
student’s grade primarily on the student’s performance over all units taken as a
whole, whereas in Keller’s plan, mastery of the parts of a course is the
equivalent of mastery of the course taken as a whole. Keller bases the student’s
grade mostly on his performance on each unit. For Bloom, mastery is performance
at or above a particular level on the course final examination, whereas for
Keller, mastery is perfect performance on a particular number of units by a
certain point in time. Bloom’s plan tends to use larger learning units than does
Keller’s plan. Bloom’s units usually correspond to two weeks worth of instruction; Keller’s units usually
correspond to about one week worth of instruction. In both strategies, the
teacher is encouraged to sequence his learning units; but in Bloom’s strategy,
the teacher attempts to sequence the units hierarchically so that the material
in one unit builds on the material from the preceding unit. Bloom’s units are
taught using group-based methods while Keller’s units are taught using
individual based methods. The Keller strategy asks students to learn by reading,
whereas the Bloom strategy asks students to learn by reading, hearing lectures,
and/or participating in discussions. In Bloom’s strategy, the original
instruction is teacher-paced; whereas in Keller’s approach, it is student or
self-paced (Block, 1974).
A Critique of Both
Approaches
Both mastery learning and
Personalized System of Instruction have been criticized. Gage and Berliner
(1988) quoted Mueller (1976) as asserting that mastery
learning
(a) takes much of the
responsibility for learning away from students, who may end up not knowing how
to learn independently; (b) requires non-fixed-time instructional units or
greatly liberalized time allocations; (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).
Slavin and Karweit (1984) concluded that the results of their study “do
not support the effectiveness of
the principal component of group-paced mastery learning, the cycle of
formative test, corrective
instruction for nonmasters, and summative test” (p.
732). According to Slavin (1987) (cited in Gage &
Berliner, 1988) longer-term experiments yield much lower estimates of
effectiveness than do briefer experiments. Also standardized achievement tests
show less effectiveness for the approach than do experimenter-made tests. Slavin, with a modified view, concluded
that:
The best evidence from
evaluations of practical applications of group-based mastery learning indicates
that effects of those methods are moderate at best on experimenter-made
achievement measures closely tied to the objectives taught in the mastery
learning classes and are essentially nil on standardized achievement measures.
... These conclusions are radically different from those drawn by earlier
reviewers and meta-analysts. (p. 464)
Gage and Berliner (1988) stated
that unless carefully controlled and implemented, mastery learning often helps
slower-learning students at the expense of faster-learning students by taking
educational resources such as teacher’s time and attention. Faster learners are
often left on their own with “busy” work.
Most critics do not deny that
benefits accrue under the Personalized System of Instruction or
continuous-progress types of mastery programs in which students move at their
own pace; however, several critics of group based mastery learning (Arlin, 1984a; Slavin, 1987) have
questioned whether mastery learning simply shifts learning from high to low
achievers. They suggest that mastery learning sacrifices coverage for mastery
and since rapid coverage is likely to be of greatest benefit to high achievers
and high mastery is of greatest benefit to low achievers, pure group based
mastery learning will likely produce a “Robin Hood”
effect.
There are several other
reservations about the mastery learning approach. Mueller (1976) sees the
mastery model as placing a ceiling beyond which the faster learners are not
allowed to progress. Mueller also believes that it is not useful in training
students to learn independently. In addition, he states, “the mastery model
equates mastery with high quality performance” (p. 14). Mueller thinks that, in
addition to what a student learns, how long it took him to learn it should be a
part of his grade.
Later studies countered these
criticisms by questioning the efficacy of the individual implementations of the
mastery learning. Arredondo and Block (1990) stated that “when well implemented
separately, both mastery learning and thinking skills programs appear to improve
student learning.” Technology is often viewed as a useful tool for the more
efficient implementation of some of the key aspects of the mastery learning
model. Both mastery learning and PSI try to ensure remedial instruction of high
quality. Alternative textbooks, workbooks, programmed instruction, games, and
interaction with a tutor may help a particular student to understand what he is
learning (Gage & Berliner, 1988).
Discussion and Conclusion
The hidden agenda that schools
carry out does not involve how much students learn. The agenda is to divide
students based on their academic achievement. The schools function on a system
that separates the smartest from those that are not as academically inclined.
That is the structure of the educational system in the United
States.
If, for example, forty students
were put in a classroom, there would be some students that would have poor
academic skills, while others excelled. These students are separated based on
their academic performance. The reason why we have to perform this function in
education for society is that businesses, law firms, graduate schools, etc. all
want to employ the brightest and the best students. This is the way to
categorize students. This is based on the function that our educational system
performs for us in the United States. Thus, our educational system is based on
the notion that allows performance to vary in the classroom. It is acceptable
for us to teach all students the same things, access their learning, and see how
students differ in terms of what they learn.
In mastery learning, time rather
than performance, varies. Time is probably the biggest and the most important
element of mastery learning. What is done in classrooms now is the same as what
was done one hundred years ago: uniform instruction is presented in the
classroom. This is what goes on in 99% of classrooms. The same instruction is
presented to a number of students. What is measured? Achievement is measured in
terms of how much information students are able to master. A bell curve is found
to tell what most are learning, which is about 70% of the objective.
Obviously students are different.
Some have higher aptitude than others in the classroom. Therefore, for all
students to reach a high standard of performance it will take some students
longer than it will take others. Thus, with mastery learning, the longer period
of time required for some students to learn hinders them from reaching the
desired achievement level. An advantage of mastery learning is that more
students achieve higher learning. Also, students would have prerequisite skills
to move to the next units, objectives would be stated, and better academic
performance would result for some students. An obvious disadvantage of mastery
learning is that the less capable students who do not achieve the criterion as
quickly take longer to master the material. Also, individualized instruction, a
variety of material for re-teaching, and several tests for each unit may be
required. The main weakness of mastery learning is the time factor.
Mastery learning is an
alternative method of teaching and learning for many students who do not respond
well to traditional instruction. Traditional instruction has not been successful
for many students in schools, colleges, and universities. Like the mastery
learning theory, cooperative learning is a strategy that looks unfavorably on
competition among individual students when learning the subject matter. In
addition, it is a strategy like mastery learning that makes the students
responsible for their learning the subject. Cooperative learning is considered
by many educators to be the most viable means by which all students can learn
the subject matter (Motamedi & Sumrall, 2000).
Constructivism, on the other hand, has been described as the unifying theory of
education that has succeeded in tying together all learning theories in all
academic areas. Constructivists use a type of learning where students are
allowed "concrete, contextually meaningful experience through which they can
search for patterns, raise their own questions, and construct their own models,
concepts, and strategies" (Fosnot, 1996, p. ix).
According to Fosnot, the classroom in this model is
viewed as sharing activities, discourse, and reflection. The teacher is more of
a facilitator rather than traditional controller of the classroom. Unlike
cooperative learning, the literature does not provide a positive tie between
constructivism and mastery learning.
From the research discussed
above, it is evident that mastery learning is an effective method of instruction
which enhances student learning, achievement, attitude, and expectations. There
is also evidence that students enjoy this method of learning and individually
can reach success. Students prefer the Keller plan to traditional teaching
methods. Mastery teaching and learning is a very simplistic way of teaching and
learning in the sense that the instructors assume all students can learn the
same material. The only difference among students is the amount of time needed
to learn the material. With such positive results shown by research studies on
mastery learning, it becomes clear that mastery learning techniques need to be
more widely implemented in American classrooms than they currently
are.
References
Arredondo, D. E. & Block, J.
H. (1990). Recognizing the connections between thinking skills
and mastery learning.
Educational Leadership, 47(5), 4-10.
Arlin, M. (1984a). Time, equality, and mastery learning. Review of
Educational Research, 54, 65-86.
Arlin, M. (1984b). Time variability in mastery learning. American Educational
Research Journal, 21, 103-120.
Block, J. H. (ed.) (1971).
Mastery learning: Theory and practice. New York: Holt, Rinehat and Winston.
Block, J. H. (1973). Teachers teaching and mastery learning. Today’s
Education, 62, 30-37.
Block, J. H. (ed.) (1974). Schools, society, and mastery learning. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Block, J. H. (1979). Mastery learning — Current state of the craft. Educational
Leadership, 37, 114-117.
Block, J. H. & Anderson, L.
W. (1975). Mastery learning in classroom
instruction. New York: Macmillon.
Bloom, B.
(1968). Learning for mastery.
Evaluation Comment, 1(2), 1-5.
Bloom, B. S.
(1974a).
Implications of the IEA studies for curriculum and
instruction. School Review, 82, 413-435.
Bloom, B. S.
(1974b). Time
and learning. American Psychologist, 29, 682-688.
Bloom, B. S.
(1976).
Human characteristics and school learning, New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Bloom, B. S.
(1979). A conversation with Benjamin Bloom. Interview by Ron Brandt. Educational Leadership, 39,
157-161.
Bloom, B. S.
(1980). The
new direction in educational research: Alterable variables. Phi Delta Kappan, 62, 382-385.
Carroll,
J. B. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record, 64(8),
723-733.
Carroll, J. B. (1971). Problems
of measurement related to the concept of learning for mastery. J. H. Block (ed.)
Mastery Learning: Theory and Practice, New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
Davis, D. &
Sorrell, J. (1995). Mastery
learning in public schools. Valdosta State
University.
Fosnot, C. T. (1996). Constructivism: A
psychological theory of learning. In C. T. Fosnot
(ed.), Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice (pp. 8-33). New
York: Teachers College press.
Gage, N. L. & Berliner,
D. C. (1988). Educational Psychology (4th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Glass, G. V.
& Smith, M. L. (1978). The technology
and politics of standards. Educational Technology, 18,
12-18.
Guskey, T. R. (1990). Cooperative Mastery Learning Strategies. The Elementary
School Journal, 91(1), 33-42.
Guskey, T. & Gates, S. (1986). Synthesis of research on the effects of mastery learning in
elementary and secondary classrooms. Educational
Leadership, 43(8), 73-80.
Jensen,
E. (2006). Enriching the Brain: How to Maximize Every
Learner’s Potential. San
Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.
Keller, F. S. (1981). PSI and educational reform. Journal of College Science
Teaching, 11(1), 37-38.
Klishis, M. J.; Hursh, D. E. & Klishis, L. A. (1980). Individualized spelling: An
application and evaluation of PSI in the elementary school. Journal of
Personalized Instruction, 4(3), 152-156.
Kulik, J. A.; Kulik,
C. L. & Carmichael, K. (1974).
The Keller plan in science teaching. Science, 183,
379-383.
Kulik, J. A.; Jaksa, P. & Kulik,
C. C. (1978). Research on component features of Keller's
personalized system of instruction. Journal of Personalized
Instruction, 3(1), 2-14.
Kulik, C. C.; Kulik, J. A. & Bangert-Drowns, R .L. (1990). Effectiveness of
mastery
learning programs: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational
Research, 60(2), 265-299.
Lai, P. &
Biggs, J. (1994) Who Benefits from Mastery Learning? Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 19, 13-23.
Montazemi, A. R. &
Wang, F. (1995). An empirical
investigation of CBI in support of mastery learning. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 13(2), 185-205.
Motamedi, V. & Sumrall,W. J. (2000). Mastery learning and contemporary issues in education.
Action in Teacher Education, 22(1), 32-42.
Mueller, D. J.
(1976).
Mastery learning: Partly boon, partly boondoggle. Teachers College
Record, 78, 41-52.
Ritchie,
D. & Thorkildsen, R. (1994). Effects of
accountability on students’ achievement in
mastery learning. Journal of Educational Research, 88(2),
86-90.
Robinson, M.
(1992).
Mastery learning in public schools: Some areas of restructuring. Education,
113(1), 121-126.
Ross, L.
L. & McBean, D. (1995). A comparison of
pacing contingencies in classes using a
personalized system of instruction. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 28(1), 87-88.
Slavin, R. E.
(1987).
Mastery learning reconsidered. Review of Educational Research, 57, 175-213.
Slavin, R. E.
(1990).
Mastery learning re-reconsidered. Review of Educational Research, 60(2),
300-302.
Slavin, R. E. &
Karweit, N. L. (1984). Mastery learning and student
teams: A factorial
experiment in urban general Mathematics classes. American Educational
Research Journal, 21(4), 725-736.
Semb, G. (1980). PSI versus contingency-managed lecture in student-selected and
randomly
assigned sections of the same course. Journal of Personalized
Instruction, 4(3), 129-135.
Walberg, H. J. (1984). Improving the productivity of America’s schools.
Educational Leadership, 41, 19-27.
Washburne, C. W. (1922). Educational measurements as a key to individualizing instruction and
promotions. Journal of Educational Research, 5,
195-206.
Wentling, T. L. (1973). Mastery versus non-mastery instruction with varying test item
feedback treatments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 65,
50-58.
Whiting, B.
& Render, G. F. (1984). Cognitive and affective outcomes
of mastery learning: A review of 16 semesters. A paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the Northern Rocky Mountain Education Research Association, Jackson,
Wyoming, October 1984.