How Mastery Learning Works at Scale

Steven Ritter, M. Yudelson, Stephen E. Fancsali, Susan R. Berman
{"title":"How Mastery Learning Works at Scale","authors":"Steven Ritter, M. Yudelson, Stephen E. Fancsali, Susan R. Berman","doi":"10.1145/2876034.2876039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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.","PeriodicalId":20739,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Third (2016) ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"63","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the Third (2016) ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2876034.2876039","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 63

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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
精通学习是如何大规模运作的
几乎每一个自适应学习系统都旨在为学生提供个性化的材料,以满足他们的理解水平(Enyedy, 2014)。通常,这种适应遵循某种形式的掌握学习(Bloom, 1968),在这种学习中,学生被要求在学习下一个主题之前掌握一个主题。掌握式学习项目有着悠久的成功历史(Guskey and Gates, 1986;Kulik, Kulik & Bangert-Drowns, 1990),并且已被证明优于其他教学方法。虽然有证据表明,在教师的大力支持下,掌握学习是有效的,但掌握学习的有效性关键取决于教师正确实施掌握学习的能力和意愿。特别是,学校环境施加了时间限制,并设定了课程覆盖的目标,这可能会鼓励教师偏离以掌握为基础的教学。在本文中,我们考察了掌握学习作为卡内基学习的认知导师的实施。我们调查了在整个学年的课程中,在班级和学生层面上违反和遵循精通学习的模式。我们发现,违反精通学习与较差的学生表现有关,特别是在挣扎的学生中,这一结果可能归因于这种违反精通学习。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Online Urbanism: Interest-based Subcultures as Drivers of Informal Learning in an Online Community Course Builder Skill Maps A Preliminary Look at MOOC-associated Facebook Groups: Prevalence, Geographic Representation, and Homophily Profiling MOOC Course Returners: How Does Student Behavior Change Between Two Course Enrollments? AXIS
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1