How Mastery Learning Works at Scale

ABSTRACT

Nearly every adaptive learning system aims to present students with materials personalized to their level of understanding (Enyedy, 2014). Typically, such adaptation follows some form of mastery learning (Bloom, 1968), in which students are asked to master one topic before proceeding to the next topic. Mastery learning programs have a long history of success (Guskey and Gates, 1986; Kulik, Kulik & Bangert-Drowns, 1990) and have been shown to be superior to alternative instructional approaches.

Although there is evidence for the effectiveness of mastery learning when it is well supported by teachers, mastery learning's effectiveness is crucially dependent on the ability and willingness of teachers to implement it properly. In particular, school environments impose time constraints and set goals for curriculum coverage that may encourage teachers to deviate from mastery-based instruction.

In this paper we examine mastery learning as implemented in Carnegie Learning's Cognitive Tutor. Like in all real-world systems, teachers and students have the ability to violate mastery learning guidance. We investigate patterns associated with violating and following mastery learning over the course of the full school year at the class and student level. We find that violations of mastery learning are associated with poorer student performance, especially among struggling students, and that this result is likely attributable to such violations of mastery learning.

References

1. Block, J. H., & Burns, R. B. (1976). Mastery learning. In L. Shulman (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 4, pp. 3--49). Itasca, IL: Peacock.
2. Bloom, B. S. (1968, May). Mastery learning. In Evaluation comment (Vol. 1, No. 2). Los Angeles:University of California at Los Angeles, Center for the Study of Evaluation of Instructional Programs.
3. Corbett, A.T., Anderson, J.R. (1995). Knowledge Tracing: Modeling the Acquisition of Procedural Knowledge. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 1995, 4, 253--278.
4. Enyedy, N. (2014). Personalized Instruction: New Interest, Old Rhetoric, Limited Results, and the Need for a New Direction for Computer-Mediated Learning. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved 10/29/2015 from http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/personalizedinstruction.
5. Guskey, T. R., & Gates, S. L. (1986). Synthesis of research on the effects of mastery learning in elementary and secondary classrooms. Educational Leadership, 43 (8), 73--80.
6. Koedinger, K.R., Corbett, A.C., & Perfetti, C. (2012). The Knowledge-Learning-Instruction (KLI) framework: Bridging the science-practice chasm to enhance robust student learning. Cognitive Science, 36 (5), 757--798.
7. Kulik, C.-L., Kulik, J. A., & Bangert-Drowns, R. L. (1990). Effectiveness of mastery learning programs: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 60, 265--299.
8. Pane, J.F., Griffin, B.A., McCaffrey, D.F., & Karam, R. (2014). Effectiveness of Cognitive Tutor Algebra I at scale. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36, 127--144.
9. Ritter, S., Anderson, J.R., Koedinger, K.R., & Corbett, A. (2007) The Cognitive Tutor: Applied research in mathematics education. Psychonomics Bulletin & Review, 14(2), pp. 249--255.
10. Ritter, S., Joshi, A., Fancsali, S. E., Nixon, T. (2013). Predicting standardized test scores from Cognitive Tutor interactions. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Educational Data Mining (Memphis, TN,2013). 169--176.

Index Terms

• Applied computing

  • Education

    • Computer-assisted instruction

    • Computer-managed instruction

    • E-learning

    • Interactive learning environments

• Human-centered computing

  • Human computer interaction (HCI)

• Social and professional topics

  • Professional topics

    • Computing education

      • K-12 education