The effects of mastery learning on the test performance of first year students enrolled in a measurement and evaluation course at the University of the Azores
Date
1982
Authors
Peixoto, Ermelindo Manuel
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
One hundred and forty-one student-teachers enrolled in a course in measurement and evaluation at the University of the Azores were assigned to three groups, comprising four different treatment conditions.
Groups I and III were assigned respectively to the mastery and nonmastery conditions. Group II, described in the study as a quasi-mastery group, received two treatments in succession. First, students in this group had sequenced instruction, based on structured learning hierarchies and unit tests, without provision for knowledge of results on the unit tests. Secondly, during the latter part of the experiment provision was made for feedback on the unit tests. In the group assigned to the nonmastery condition (III), there were two subgroups: those who received a pretest in advance of the instruction and those who were provided instruction but without a pretest.
There was a basic difference between students in the mastery and nonmastery groups (I and III). The former comprised first year students with no experience of university courses and testing procedures; the latter consisted of subjects who had already one or more education courses to their credit and who possessed some knowledge of the testing methods used in our study.
All groups received two achievement tests--Summative I in the middle of the instructional period and Summative II at the end. Students in Group II, who were exposed to two different treatment conditions, received the same two tests: Summative I, which measured the effects of treatment #2, and Summative II which measured treatment #3 results.
Those subjects who received mastery instruction (first year) attained higher levels of achievement as a group than did those learning under the conventional method of lecture instruction (upper classmen). This was in spite of the fact that the course was at the third year level. Unlike the nonmastery group, the younger students had had no previous exposure to related courses and objective testing procedures.
Significant differences in levels of achievement were also revealed between the mastery students and the students in the first quasi-mastery treatment (unit tests without feedback). The firs year students scored about the same as those assigned to the nonmastery condition.
However, when Group II subjects learned under treatment #3 (mastery method minus correctives) the group results were not significantly different from those obtained under the full mastery treatment (#1). However, Group II results under treatment #3 (tests only with feedback) were also not significantly different from those obtained by the nonmastery students.
Student performance was not significantly affected during the second part of the experiment when the unit tests were retained by the instructor once the relevant feedback/corrective measures had been accomplished. This was to ensure that subjects could not sue these tests for study in preparation for the summative evaluation. Also, there was no difference in student affect towards the relevant course materials between those learning for mastery in Group I and those learning under the partial mastery methods in Group II.
It may be concluded that the mastery method proved itself to be superior to the traditional method of lecture-discussion in increasing student achievement in this experimental study.