composing a research paper mastery test

13.5 Research Process: Making Notes, Synthesizing Information, and Keeping a Research Log

Learning outcomes.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Employ the methods and technologies commonly used for research and communication within various fields.
• Practice and apply strategies such as interpretation, synthesis, response, and critique to compose texts that integrate the writer’s ideas with those from appropriate sources.
• Analyze and make informed decisions about intellectual property based on the concepts that motivate them.
• Apply citation conventions systematically.

As you conduct research, you will work with a range of “texts” in various forms, including sources and documents from online databases as well as images, audio, and video files from the Internet. You may also work with archival materials and with transcribed and analyzed primary data. Additionally, you will be taking notes and recording quotations from secondary sources as you find materials that shape your understanding of your topic and, at the same time, provide you with facts and perspectives. You also may download articles as PDFs that you then annotate. Like many other students, you may find it challenging to keep so much material organized, accessible, and easy to work with while you write a major research paper. As it does for many of those students, a research log for your ideas and sources will help you keep track of the scope, purpose, and possibilities of any research project.

A research log is essentially a journal in which you collect information, ask questions, and monitor the results. Even if you are completing the annotated bibliography for Writing Process: Informing and Analyzing , keeping a research log is an effective organizational tool. Like Lily Tran’s research log entry, most entries have three parts: a part for notes on secondary sources, a part for connections to the thesis or main points, and a part for your own notes or questions. Record source notes by date, and allow room to add cross-references to other entries.

Summary of Assignment: Research Log

Your assignment is to create a research log similar to the student model. You will use it for the argumentative research project assigned in Writing Process: Integrating Research to record all secondary source information: your notes, complete publication data, relation to thesis, and other information as indicated in the right-hand column of the sample entry.

Another Lens. A somewhat different approach to maintaining a research log is to customize it to your needs or preferences. You can apply shading or color coding to headers, rows, and/or columns in the three-column format (for colors and shading). Or you can add columns to accommodate more information, analysis, synthesis, or commentary, formatting them as you wish. Consider adding a column for questions only or one for connections to other sources. Finally, consider a different visual format , such as one without columns. Another possibility is to record some of your comments and questions so that you have an aural rather than a written record of these.

Writing Center

At this point, or at any other point during the research and writing process, you may find that your school’s writing center can provide extensive assistance. If you are unfamiliar with the writing center, now is a good time to pay your first visit. Writing centers provide free peer tutoring for all types and phases of writing. Discussing your research with a trained writing center tutor can help you clarify, analyze, and connect ideas as well as provide feedback on works in progress.

Quick Launch: Beginning Questions

You may begin your research log with some open pages in which you freewrite, exploring answers to the following questions. Although you generally would do this at the beginning, it is a process to which you likely will return as you find more information about your topic and as your focus changes, as it may during the course of your research.

• What information have I found so far?
• What do I still need to find?
• Where am I most likely to find it?

These are beginning questions. Like Lily Tran, however, you will come across general questions or issues that a quick note or freewrite may help you resolve. The key to this section is to revisit it regularly. Written answers to these and other self-generated questions in your log clarify your tasks as you go along, helping you articulate ideas and examine supporting evidence critically. As you move further into the process, consider answering the following questions in your freewrite:

• What evidence looks as though it best supports my thesis?
• What evidence challenges my working thesis?
• How is my thesis changing from where it started?

Creating the Research Log

As you gather source material for your argumentative research paper, keep in mind that the research is intended to support original thinking. That is, you are not writing an informational report in which you simply supply facts to readers. Instead, you are writing to support a thesis that shows original thinking, and you are collecting and incorporating research into your paper to support that thinking. Therefore, a research log, whether digital or handwritten, is a great way to keep track of your thinking as well as your notes and bibliographic information.

In the model below, Lily Tran records the correct MLA bibliographic citation for the source. Then, she records a note and includes the in-text citation here to avoid having to retrieve this information later. Perhaps most important, Tran records why she noted this information—how it supports her thesis: The human race must turn to sustainable food systems that provide healthy diets with minimal environmental impact, starting now . Finally, she makes a note to herself about an additional visual to include in the final paper to reinforce the point regarding the current pressure on food systems. And she connects the information to other information she finds, thus cross-referencing and establishing a possible synthesis. Use a format similar to that in Table 13.4 to begin your own research log.

Types of Research Notes

Taking good notes will make the research process easier by enabling you to locate and remember sources and use them effectively. While some research projects requiring only a few sources may seem easily tracked, research projects requiring more than a few sources are more effectively managed when you take good bibliographic and informational notes. As you gather evidence for your argumentative research paper, follow the descriptions and the electronic model to record your notes. You can combine these with your research log, or you can use the research log for secondary sources and your own note-taking system for primary sources if a division of this kind is helpful. Either way, be sure to include all necessary information.

Bibliographic Notes

These identify the source you are using. When you locate a useful source, record the information necessary to find that source again. It is important to do this as you find each source, even before taking notes from it. If you create bibliographic notes as you go along, then you can easily arrange them in alphabetical order later to prepare the reference list required at the end of formal academic papers. If your instructor requires you to use MLA formatting for your essay, be sure to record the following information:

• Title of source
• Title of container (larger work in which source is included)
• Other contributors
• Publication date

When using MLA style with online sources, also record the following information:

• Date of original publication
• Date of access
• DOI (A DOI, or digital object identifier, is a series of digits and letters that leads to the location of an online source. Articles in journals are often assigned DOIs to ensure that the source can be located, even if the URL changes. If your source is listed with a DOI, use that instead of a URL.)

It is important to understand which documentation style your instructor will require you to use. Check the Handbook for MLA Documentation and Format and APA Documentation and Format styles . In addition, you can check the style guide information provided by the Purdue Online Writing Lab .

Informational Notes

These notes record the relevant information found in your sources. When writing your essay, you will work from these notes, so be sure they contain all the information you need from every source you intend to use. Also try to focus your notes on your research question so that their relevance is clear when you read them later. To avoid confusion, work with separate entries for each piece of information recorded. At the top of each entry, identify the source through brief bibliographic identification (author and title), and note the page numbers on which the information appears. Also helpful is to add personal notes, including ideas for possible use of the information or cross-references to other information. As noted in Writing Process: Integrating Research , you will be using a variety of formats when borrowing from sources. Below is a quick review of these formats in terms of note-taking processes. By clarifying whether you are quoting directly, paraphrasing, or summarizing during these stages, you can record information accurately and thus take steps to avoid plagiarism.

Direct Quotations, Paraphrases, and Summaries

A direct quotation is an exact duplication of the author’s words as they appear in the original source. In your notes, put quotation marks around direct quotations so that you remember these words are the author’s, not yours. One advantage of copying exact quotations is that it allows you to decide later whether to include a quotation, paraphrase, or summary. ln general, though, use direct quotations only when the author’s words are particularly lively or persuasive.

A paraphrase is a restatement of the author’s words in your own words. Paraphrase to simplify or clarify the original author’s point. In your notes, use paraphrases when you need to record details but not exact words.

A summary is a brief condensation or distillation of the main point and most important details of the original source. Write a summary in your own words, with facts and ideas accurately represented. A summary is useful when specific details in the source are unimportant or irrelevant to your research question. You may find you can summarize several paragraphs or even an entire article or chapter in just a few sentences without losing useful information. It is a good idea to note when your entry contains a summary to remind you later that it omits detailed information. See Writing Process Integrating Research for more detailed information and examples of quotations, paraphrases, and summaries and when to use them.

Other Systems for Organizing Research Logs and Digital Note-Taking

Students often become frustrated and at times overwhelmed by the quantity of materials to be managed in the research process. If this is your first time working with both primary and secondary sources, finding ways to keep all of the information in one place and well organized is essential.

Because gathering primary evidence may be a relatively new practice, this section is designed to help you navigate the process. As mentioned earlier, information gathered in fieldwork is not cataloged, organized, indexed, or shelved for your convenience. Obtaining it requires diligence, energy, and planning. Online resources can assist you with keeping a research log. Your college library may have subscriptions to tools such as Todoist or EndNote. Consult with a librarian to find out whether you have access to any of these. If not, use something like the template shown in Figure 13.8 , or another like it, as a template for creating your own research notes and organizational tool. You will need to have a record of all field research data as well as the research log for all secondary sources.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/writing-guide/pages/1-unit-introduction

• Authors: Michelle Bachelor Robinson, Maria Jerskey, featuring Toby Fulwiler
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Writing Guide with Handbook
• Publication date: Dec 21, 2021
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/writing-guide/pages/1-unit-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/writing-guide/pages/13-5-research-process-making-notes-synthesizing-information-and-keeping-a-research-log

© Dec 19, 2023 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

• Our Mission

How to Design Better Tests, Based on the Research

A review of a dozen recent studies reveals that to design good tests, teachers need to consider bias, rigor, and mindset.

Claire Longmoor didn’t expect her math problem to go viral . 

“An orchestra of 120 players takes 40 minutes to play Beethoven’s 9th symphony,” the question read. “How long would it take for 60 players to play the symphony?”

As with so many puzzles that find their way to the internet, the responses were radically split and mostly wrong: One group of people, who were perhaps reading too fast, confidently declared the answer to be 20 minutes. The second camp reasoned that half as many musicians would have to work twice as hard, so the answer must be 80 minutes.

Yet a third group was stupefied, questioning the teacher’s ability to write good questions. “Think the person who came up with that question really doesn’t know how an orchestra works!” the Wexford Sinfonia Orchestra tweeted.

It’s a trick question, Longmoor admitted, one designed to keep her students on their toes, echoing a common sentiment among test makers that such questions force students to read carefully, ensuring that they attend to substantive questions later on. But do trick questions actually work as intended?

Andrew Butler, a professor of psychological and brain sciences at Washington University, doesn’t think so. Trick questions are not “productive for learning” and can easily backfire, he says. The result: confused students, artificially reduced test performance, and a murkier picture of what students actually know.

Other research on test design suggests that all too often, we’re not just assessing what students know, but also getting a peek into the psychological and cognitive eddies that disrupt a student’s thinking—a high-stakes test that causes anxiety can become a barometer of a student’s poise, rather than their knowledge. A well-designed test is rigorous and keeps implicit bias in check, while being mindful of the role that confidence, mindset, and anxiety play in test taking. Here are eight tips to create effective tests, based on a review of more than a dozen recent studies.

1. HELP STUDENTS DEVELOP GOOD TEST PREP HABITS

Students often overestimate how prepared they are for an upcoming test, which can result in unexpected low performance, according to a 2017 study . Consider asking students to make and show you a study plan involving productive study strategies like self-quizzing, teaching the major concepts to peers, or spacing out their studying into multiple sessions instead of cramming the night before.

To help address test anxiety, researchers recommend setting aside a little time for simple writing or self-talk exercises before the test —they allow students to shore up their confidence, recall their test-taking strategies, and put the exam into perspective. In a 2019 study , for example, elementary students who spent a few minutes before a test and “silently spoke words of encouragement to themselves that were focused on effort” saw their math scores rise. And in a 2019 study of ninth graders, researchers found that a simple 10-minute expressive writing activity that reframed test anxiety as “a beneficial and energizing force” led to course failure rates being cut in half for vulnerable students.

2. FIND THE SWEET SPOT FOR RIGOR

Design tests so they’re at an appropriate level of difficulty for your students. Overly difficult tests not only sap students’ motivation but also increase the likelihood that students will remember the wrong answers, according to a 2018 study .

In the end, “tests that are extremely easy or difficult are essentially useless for both assessment and learning,” the study concludes. Students who study moderately should get roughly 70 to 80 percent of the questions correct. 

3. BUT START WITH EASY QUESTIONS

Don’t start a test with challenging questions; let students ease into a test. Asking difficult questions to probe for deep knowledge is important, but remember that confidence and mindset can dramatically affect outcomes—and therefore muddy the waters of your assessment. 

A 2021 study found that students were more likely to do worse on a test if difficult questions were at the beginning instead of nearer to the middle or the end of the test. “Students might be disheartened by seeing a hard question early in the test, as a signal of the general difficulty of the rest of the test,” the researchers explain.

4. BE AWARE OF IMPLICIT BIAS

Question format matters. In a 2018 study , researchers analyzed test scores for 8 million students and discovered that boys tend to outperform girls on multiple-choice questions, accounting for roughly 25 percent of the gender achievement gap. Girls performed significantly better than boys on open-ended questions. Consider the mix of your testing formats: Combine traditional testing formats—multiple choice, short answer, and essay questions—with creative, open-ended assessments that can elicit different strengths and interests.

Be mindful, as well, of how cultural or racial bias and background knowledge can infiltrate the language and framing of test questions. In an infamous example, an SAT analogy question required students to select “oarsman:regatta” in response to the word pair “runner:marathon,” an expectation that was fraught with classist, racial, and geographic overtones. 

Other studies reveal that without a threshold of background knowledge, students fail to grasp the intent of their reading—an incorrect answer on a test may signify the failure to determine the meaning of the question, rather than measure the student’s understanding of the material. Keep test questions free of unnecessary jargon, revise tests to simplify questions, and consider allowing students to ask for clarification before you start the test. 

5. AVOID TRICK QUESTIONS

While it may be tempting to include trick questions to make sure that students are paying attention, they can get stuck or confused, wasting precious time and compromising the rest of the test as a result, a 2018 study concludes. 

Tests aren’t just tools to evaluate learning; they can also alter a student’s understanding of a topic. So if students try to recall information they’re unsure about, they may reconstruct it incorrectly, increasing the likelihood that they will retain false information. For example, if you asked, “What was George Washington’s goal with writing the Emancipation Proclamation?” some students may commit it to memory and connect the wrong president to the seminal historical document. 

6. BREAK TESTS APART

Instead of a single high-stakes test, consider breaking it into smaller low-stakes tests that you can spread throughout the school year. That strategy alleviated test anxiety for 72 percent of middle and high school students, according to a 2014 study . 

The likely reason? When students take high-stakes tests, their cortisol levels—a biological marker for stress—rise dramatically, impeding their ability to concentrate and artificially lowering test scores, a 2018 study found. Stress is a normal part of test-taking, but there are kinds of stress that should be avoided, such as whether the student thinks they’ll be able to finish.

7. TRY TO MINIMIZE THE EFFECTS OF TIME LIMITS

Time limits are unavoidable, but you can mitigate their pernicious effects on anxiety levels. “Evidence strongly suggests that timed tests cause the early onset of math anxiety for students across the achievement range,” explains Jo Boaler, mathematics professor at Stanford. This extends to other subjects as well, according to a 2020 study , which also found that timed tests disproportionately harm students with disabilities.

If a student aces most of the test but then gets the last few questions wrong or leaves them blank, it’s possible that they panicked as the time limit approached—or knew the information intimately but simply couldn’t finish the test. It may be helpful to time yourself taking the test and cut a few questions so that it’s clearly shorter than your class period. 

8. PERIODICALLY, LET STUDENTS WRITE THEIR OWN TESTS

Sometimes, less design is better: The research suggests that one effective strategy, at least periodically, is to ask students to write their own test questions. 

In a 2020 study , students who generated test questions scored 14 percentage points higher than students who simply reviewed the material. “Question generation promotes a deeper elaboration of the learning content,” explains psychology professor Mirjam Ebersbach. “One has to reflect what one has learned and how an appropriate knowledge question can be inferred from this knowledge.” Model question-asking for students —highlighting your own examples first—and then teach them how to ask good questions. They may start with simple factual questions, but with enough practice, they can propose questions that start with “Explain” or that dig deeper into a topic with how and why questions. 

9. AFTER-TEST STRATEGIES

Beyond test design, there’s the important question of what happens after a test. All too often, students receive a test, glance at the grade, and move on. But that deprives them, and the teacher, of a valuable opportunity to address misconceptions and gaps in knowledge. Don’t think of tests as an endpoint to learning. Follow up with feedback , and consider strategies like “ exam wrappers ”— short metacognitive writing activities that ask students to review their performance on the test and think about ways they could improve in future testing scenarios.

You might also rethink your policy around test retakes. While students can certainly take unfair advantage of some test-retaking policies, there are innovative approaches that preserve the integrity of the initial test while allowing students to recover partial credit for materials they haven’t successfully learned. Set clear limits, pose a different set of questions—or allow partial credit for demonstrating deep knowledge of questions they missed on the test—or ask students to reflect on why they missed earlier questions and what they can do to improve in the future, teachers recommend .

Eberly Center

Teaching excellence & educational innovation, creating and using rubrics.

A rubric is a scoring tool that explicitly describes the instructor’s performance expectations for an assignment or piece of work. A rubric identifies:

• criteria: the aspects of performance (e.g., argument, evidence, clarity) that will be assessed
• descriptors: the characteristics associated with each dimension (e.g., argument is demonstrable and original, evidence is diverse and compelling)
• performance levels: a rating scale that identifies students’ level of mastery within each criterion  

Rubrics can be used to provide feedback to students on diverse types of assignments, from papers, projects, and oral presentations to artistic performances and group projects.

Benefitting from Rubrics

• reduce the time spent grading by allowing instructors to refer to a substantive description without writing long comments
• help instructors more clearly identify strengths and weaknesses across an entire class and adjust their instruction appropriately
• help to ensure consistency across time and across graders
• reduce the uncertainty which can accompany grading
• discourage complaints about grades
• understand instructors’ expectations and standards
• use instructor feedback to improve their performance
• monitor and assess their progress as they work towards clearly indicated goals
• recognize their strengths and weaknesses and direct their efforts accordingly

Examples of Rubrics

Here we are providing a sample set of rubrics designed by faculty at Carnegie Mellon and other institutions. Although your particular field of study or type of assessment may not be represented, viewing a rubric that is designed for a similar assessment may give you ideas for the kinds of criteria, descriptions, and performance levels you use on your own rubric.

• Example 1: Philosophy Paper This rubric was designed for student papers in a range of courses in philosophy (Carnegie Mellon).
• Example 2: Psychology Assignment Short, concept application homework assignment in cognitive psychology (Carnegie Mellon).
• Example 3: Anthropology Writing Assignments This rubric was designed for a series of short writing assignments in anthropology (Carnegie Mellon).
• Example 4: History Research Paper . This rubric was designed for essays and research papers in history (Carnegie Mellon).
• Example 1: Capstone Project in Design This rubric describes the components and standards of performance from the research phase to the final presentation for a senior capstone project in design (Carnegie Mellon).
• Example 2: Engineering Design Project This rubric describes performance standards for three aspects of a team project: research and design, communication, and team work.

Oral Presentations

• Example 1: Oral Exam This rubric describes a set of components and standards for assessing performance on an oral exam in an upper-division course in history (Carnegie Mellon).
• Example 2: Oral Communication This rubric is adapted from Huba and Freed, 2000.
• Example 3: Group Presentations This rubric describes a set of components and standards for assessing group presentations in history (Carnegie Mellon).

Class Participation/Contributions

• Example 1: Discussion Class This rubric assesses the quality of student contributions to class discussions. This is appropriate for an undergraduate-level course (Carnegie Mellon).
• Example 2: Advanced Seminar This rubric is designed for assessing discussion performance in an advanced undergraduate or graduate seminar.

See also " Examples and Tools " section of this site for more rubrics.

CONTACT US to talk with an Eberly colleague in person!

• Faculty Support
• Graduate Student Support
• Canvas @ Carnegie Mellon
• Quick Links

Scientific Writing: Peer Review and Scientific Journals

by Natalie H. Kuldell

• Peer review can best be summarized as: a process for evaluating the safety of boat docks. a process by which independent scientists evaluate the technical merit of scientific research papers. a process by which a scientist's friends can give him or her advice. a method of typesetting in publishing.
• The process of peer review always ensures that a scientific paper is correct. true false
• One of the main purposes for including a "Materials and Methods" section in a paper is: to advertise scientific products. to demonstrate that your methods are superior to other scientists' methods. to allow other scientists to reproduce your findings. for no reason; most journals do not require this section.
• The main purpose of a "References" section in a scientific paper: is to acknowledge your colleagues who gave you advice. is to present other papers that the reader might want to consult. is to provide a list of scientists who have repeated your research. is to acknowledge research and concepts upon which your work builds.
• Tables and figures are used in a scientific paper to present and explain research results. true false
• Often, one of the best places to start reading an article is: at the end, in the "Discussion" section. at a random spot in the middle of the article. in the "Materials and Methods" section. in the "References" section.

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Argumentative Essays (Test)

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

The Modes of Discourse—Exposition, Description, Narration, Argumentation (EDNA)—are common paper assignments you may encounter in your writing classes. Although these genres have been criticized by some composition scholars, the Purdue OWL recognizes the wide spread use of these approaches and students’ need to understand and produce them.

What is an argumentative essay?

The argumentative essay is a genre of writing that requires the student to investigate a topic; collect, generate, and evaluate evidence; and establish a position on the topic in a concise manner.

Please note : Some confusion may occur between the argumentative essay and the expository essay. These two genres are similar, but the argumentative essay differs from the expository essay in the amount of pre-writing (invention) and research involved. The argumentative essay is commonly assigned as a capstone or final project in first year writing or advanced composition courses and involves lengthy, detailed research. Expository essays involve less research and are shorter in length. Expository essays are often used for in-class writing exercises or tests, such as the GED or GRE.

Argumentative essay assignments generally call for extensive research of literature or previously published material. Argumentative assignments may also require empirical research where the student collects data through interviews, surveys, observations, or experiments. Detailed research allows the student to learn about the topic and to understand different points of view regarding the topic so that she/he may choose a position and support it with the evidence collected during research. Regardless of the amount or type of research involved, argumentative essays must establish a clear thesis and follow sound reasoning.

The structure of the argumentative essay is held together by the following.

• A clear, concise, and defined thesis statement that occurs in the first paragraph of the essay.

In the first paragraph of an argument essay, students should set the context by reviewing the topic in a general way. Next the author should explain why the topic is important ( exigence ) or why readers should care about the issue. Lastly, students should present the thesis statement. It is essential that this thesis statement be appropriately narrowed to follow the guidelines set forth in the assignment. If the student does not master this portion of the essay, it will be quite difficult to compose an effective or persuasive essay.

• Clear and logical transitions between the introduction, body, and conclusion.

Transitions are the mortar that holds the foundation of the essay together. Without logical progression of thought, the reader is unable to follow the essay’s argument, and the structure will collapse. Transitions should wrap up the idea from the previous section and introduce the idea that is to follow in the next section.

• Body paragraphs that include evidential support.

Each paragraph should be limited to the discussion of one general idea. This will allow for clarity and direction throughout the essay. In addition, such conciseness creates an ease of readability for one’s audience. It is important to note that each paragraph in the body of the essay must have some logical connection to the thesis statement in the opening paragraph. Some paragraphs will directly support the thesis statement with evidence collected during research. It is also important to explain how and why the evidence supports the thesis ( warrant ).

However, argumentative essays should also consider and explain differing points of view regarding the topic. Depending on the length of the assignment, students should dedicate one or two paragraphs of an argumentative essay to discussing conflicting opinions on the topic. Rather than explaining how these differing opinions are wrong outright, students should note how opinions that do not align with their thesis might not be well informed or how they might be out of date.

• Evidential support (whether factual, logical, statistical, or anecdotal).

The argumentative essay requires well-researched, accurate, detailed, and current information to support the thesis statement and consider other points of view. Some factual, logical, statistical, or anecdotal evidence should support the thesis. However, students must consider multiple points of view when collecting evidence. As noted in the paragraph above, a successful and well-rounded argumentative essay will also discuss opinions not aligning with the thesis. It is unethical to exclude evidence that may not support the thesis. It is not the student’s job to point out how other positions are wrong outright, but rather to explain how other positions may not be well informed or up to date on the topic.

• A conclusion that does not simply restate the thesis, but readdresses it in light of the evidence provided.

It is at this point of the essay that students may begin to struggle. This is the portion of the essay that will leave the most immediate impression on the mind of the reader. Therefore, it must be effective and logical. Do not introduce any new information into the conclusion; rather, synthesize the information presented in the body of the essay. Restate why the topic is important, review the main points, and review your thesis. You may also want to include a short discussion of more research that should be completed in light of your work.

A complete argument

Perhaps it is helpful to think of an essay in terms of a conversation or debate with a classmate. If I were to discuss the cause of World War II and its current effect on those who lived through the tumultuous time, there would be a beginning, middle, and end to the conversation. In fact, if I were to end the argument in the middle of my second point, questions would arise concerning the current effects on those who lived through the conflict. Therefore, the argumentative essay must be complete, and logically so, leaving no doubt as to its intent or argument.

The five-paragraph essay

A common method for writing an argumentative essay is the five-paragraph approach. This is, however, by no means the only formula for writing such essays. If it sounds straightforward, that is because it is; in fact, the method consists of (a) an introductory paragraph (b) three evidentiary body paragraphs that may include discussion of opposing views and (c) a conclusion.

Longer argumentative essays

Complex issues and detailed research call for complex and detailed essays. Argumentative essays discussing a number of research sources or empirical research will most certainly be longer than five paragraphs. Authors may have to discuss the context surrounding the topic, sources of information and their credibility, as well as a number of different opinions on the issue before concluding the essay. Many of these factors will be determined by the assignment.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Am J Pharm Educ
• v.86(10); 2022 Dec
• PMC10159400

A Practical Review of Mastery Learning

Objective. To review mastery learning and provide recommendations for implementation in a competency-based curriculum.

Findings. Mastery learning, introduced in the 1960s, was developed to ensure all students reach a desired level of mastery or competency. In this model, students acquire knowledge, skills, or attitudes and then complete formative assessments on that learning. If they achieve the desired level, they can proceed to enrichment activities. Students who do not meet the desired level of mastery proceed through corrective activities and retesting. Evidence suggests students within a mastery learning model perform better academically than those in nonmastery learning models with moderate effect sizes. Mastery learning may result in better performance due to several theoretical reasons, including aspects of motivation, testing, and feedback.

Conclusion. We make several recommendations on how to modernize mastery learning for apply it to the pharmacy education, including the recommendation to use more cumulative testing and assessment of baseline knowledge and skills. In addition, models of successive relearning may be applied to this model.

INTRODUCTION

Competency-based curriculum is a type of outcome-based education that focuses on students’ abilities to do job-related tasks, promotes learner centeredness, and de-emphasizes time-based training. 1 The continual movement toward competency-based education in the health sciences brings new tenets, the first of which is that the graduate should be competent in a diversity of abilities across various domains and a variety of contexts.

Competency is the observable ability of the pharmacist to integrate their knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes. 2 Being competent means the learner possesses the required abilities in all domains in a certain context at a defined stage of pharmacy education or practice. Thus, competency-based education balances a curricular structure based in opportunity (eg, just-in-time learning) and time-based learning (eg, everyone proceeds at the same pace through a curriculum) with flexibility (eg, students proceed at their own pace). One instantiation of competency-based education is the mastery learning model. The mastery learning model can balance time-based learning with flexibility because of its corrective pathways. It also can balance structured learning with more opportunistic learning.

Overview, Effects, and Theoretical Underpinnings of Mastery Learning

In the 1960s, Bloom determined that the most efficacious learning situation was one-on-one tutoring. 3 One-on-one tutoring starts with the student gaining an understanding of material, and, after that acquisition, their understanding is assessed through a formative assessment. If a concept is unclear to the student, the teacher or tutor provides feedback and exercises to enhance understanding (ie, corrective activities). Only when the student demonstrates adequate knowledge of the content (ie, mastery) does the teacher or tutor present new material. Thus, each student would move through the learning sequence at their own rate depending on how quickly they acquire the desired knowledge or skills. If this model of instruction is the most efficacious, then the challenge to instructors and curricular designers is to find practical ways to better meet individual learning needs in a group-based classroom. The concept of mastery learning attempts to address this challenge.

Mastery learning’s goal is for all or nearly all students to “master” or become competent in the course material. For the system to be successful, the instructor must clearly define the learning outcomes and what constitutes mastery for students. Each topic or grouping of topics (eg, instructional units) organize learning outcomes into one- or two-week intervals, and the structure of these units are displayed in Figure 1 . Following the initial instructional period, students complete a formative assessment based on the established learning outcomes. For students who accomplish the predefined level of mastery, enrichment activities are offered to supplement the students’ understanding of the material. Conversely, students who do not accomplish the predefined level of mastery are given corrective exercises specific to the concepts missed by the student. These students are then given a separate formative assessment, pertaining to the same learning outcomes, and must demonstrate mastery prior to moving to the next unit. That is, students who do not accomplish mastery the first time are remediated until they demonstrate mastery.

Depiction of the Mastery Model and its Relation to Success of the Learner. 4 , 14

As mentioned, mastery learning involves several steps: initial learning, formative assessment; corrective activities; and enrichment activities. 4 The first step is to specify learning goals or objectives. Next is developing formative assessments. The third step is organizing corrective activities, which is followed by planning enrichment activities. The final step is developing summative assessments.

In the first step, specifying learning goals or objectives, instructors make judgements on what new concepts, knowledge, or skills are important for all students to learn well. This also involves deciding the level at which students should be able to work with this new information, such as the level of simple recall, applying new or different skills to a problem, or synthesizing information. These learning objectives can be constructed with the SMART objective (specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and timely) or the Mager model. 5 , 6 The Mager model includes the minimum acceptable performance and the context for that performance. 5 As a comparison, a SMART objective may be, “By the end of this lesson, the student will be able to predict the changes in drug concentration given changes in clearance and volume of distribution.” The same objective in the Mager model would be, “Given an open-ended patient case, the student must be able to predict how drug concentrations will change in response to changes in clearance and volume of distribution with the acceptable level of performance as 80% correct.” The Mager model may be favored in competency-based education, as it defines the minimal standard or level of mastery (see Recommendations section).

The second step of designing mastery learning is the formative assessments, which provide students with feedback on their progress toward achieving the learning outcomes. 7-9 The goal of a formative assessment to correct any learning difficulties (eg, errors, misunderstandings) from instruction and direct future study. These assessments can be any format but should align with the learning objectives in terms of complexity and format. 4 , 9 That is, if the learning objective states that students should complete an open-ended assessment that is focused on application of knowledge, then the formative assessment should be open-ended and focus on application of knowledge. 10 , 11 The next part of the formative assessment is setting the standard for mastery. While many methods exist for standard setting (eg, Angoff), most use a simple percentage. 4 The literature recommends this standard be no lower than what may constitute a B, or 80%, or no higher than 90%, unless the task is so critical that it needs to be demonstrated at a high level (eg, patient safety). 4 Finally, the last part of this step is to create a second, parallel formative assessment that measures the same objectives of the first assessment, with the same standards, but whose questions may vary in structure or format. 4 , 9 This second assessment is used to check for success after corrective activities. For the formative assessments (and the summative assessment, see below), using blueprinting strategies can help with assessment consistency (see Recommendations section).

The next step is feedback and corrective activities. Because feedback provides insight on what the learner has mastered or done well and identifies areas for improvement, good feedback also provides direction on how a student can get better at areas that may be lacking. 7 , 12 , 13 The corrective activities must involve a different type of engagement consistent with the literature on remediation. 14 , 15 That is, if students learned the topic initially by reading, asking them to correct their knowledge with rereading is pointless. After students engage with the corrective activities, they can take the second formative assessment.

If students achieve the desired level of mastery on the first attempt, they can engage in enrichment activities, which should be rewarding and challenging to optimize motivation. 4 Earlier in the semester, allowing all students to engage in these enrichment activities may help motivate students to do well in future units. 4 , 9 In some cases, enrichment activities can be used for extra credit to incentivize completion.

The final step is developing the summative assessment. Per best practices, this assessment should be aligned with the learning objectives, formative assessments, and all instructional activities. Again, this can be part of the overall blueprint for assessment. Summative assessments determine the grade for the unit or course and would be appropriate to score using more traditional grading (eg, A=90%). All assessments are criterion based, aligned with the learning objectives, and ensure adequate sampling of these objectives.

Finally, the mastery approach requires the assignment of grades. Mastery learning lends itself to a pass-fail grading system, and Guskey recommended an honors-pass-fail system because it does not reward poor work but acknowledges going above and beyond expectations. 4 Although, mastery learning can be adapted to other grading systems, the grading system still relies on matching the level of competency (achievement of outcomes) to the grade and does not reward things like participation. 16-18 Deciding what is mastery or competency can be complex. For example, mastery or competency can be based on the amount of learning outcomes achieved (eg, competent on 80% of learning outcomes), or it can be based on mastering or being competent on each learning outcome as a set level (achieve an 80% correct on each learning outcome).

In summary, mastery learning stresses five things. 4 The first is students will be graded solely based on their performance on the (final) summative assessment. Second, the student will be assessed on predetermined standards and not relative to peers. Third, students who attain the standard will receive the appropriate grade reward. Fourth, throughout learning the student will be given a series of ungraded, diagnostic assessments to promote and pace learning. And, finally, each student will be given all the help they need to learn.

Various studies have been conducted to compare mastery learning to other instructional strategies. Collectively, the literature supports mastery learning in terms of improved student achievement, final examination scores, attitude toward learning and content, and less variation in student performance. 19-23 A meta-analysis of 36 mastery learning studies demonstrated an average effect size of 0.59, a medium to large effect. 20 These effect sizes varied based on the properties of the courses. For example, courses with a higher “mastery threshold” had a larger effect size in terms of increasing student examination scores. Other differences that impacted effect size included subject matter, locally developed tests (vs nationally standardized tests), pace of the course, and extent of feedback. Of note, one meta-analysis included comparisons to studies using Keller’s Personalized System of Instruction (PSI), which is a system used in one-on-one tutoring, 24 and, in general, the mastery learning model demonstrated greater effect sizes. 20

Whiting and colleagues showed an improvement in grade point average by almost one and a half grades (eg, C to a B+) in classes taught by mastery learning (n=7179). 3 The average grade in classes taught by mastery learning was an A (with scores ranging from 97% to 99%), with only 1.5% of students (n=108) achieving a grade of F. A study by Marshall supported these findings with a 10% increase in average semester grade between the mastery learning course and the traditional course. 21 This study also showed a reduction in formative assessment attempts throughout the course, demonstrating that students become more efficient at learning. Although difficult to quantify, Marshall also demonstrated the positive affective impact of mastery learning by comparing the perceived school climate and culture between students in a mastery learning course compared to those in a traditional course. 21

Although evidence demonstrates that mastery learning is beneficial in myriad ways, many potential reasons can explain why it works well. The theoretical underpinnings are that it creates a motivational environment, offers regular opportunities for retrieval practice, and focuses on feedback. The following paragraphs briefly review the theoretical underpinnings of the mastery learning model.

One overarching theme in mastery learning is establishing an environment that supports motivation. The self-determination theory of motivation has threes aspects: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. 25 , 26 Autonomy is the freedom to choose and involves the idea that when an individual has a choice, motivation increases. The autonomy aspect is present in mastery learning through the corrective activities, choice of completing enrichment activities, and the time limits of learning. As an example, in the ideal mastery learning model, struggling students would have a choice of corrective activities, encouraging them to feel motivated. Students also have the choice of whether to complete enrichment activities. Maybe most importantly, having flexibility in time also allows for choices, in that students have some flexibility to self-pace their learning and spend more time on areas of weakness and less time on areas of strength.

After autonomy, the second aspect of self-determination theory is competence. Here, the clear goal of mastery learning is to build competence. Again, for the struggling student, there is a pathway for competence despite initial poor performance. In theory, this could motivate students who may not think they would be able to “compete” for a grade otherwise. Yet, mastery learning does not let students off the hook in the same way that traditional instruction does. In traditional instruction, if a student does not complete an assignment, they would be assigned a failing grade, whereas in a mastery learning course, the student would receive an incomplete grade until they completed the assignment.

Finally, the last aspect of self-determination theory, relatedness, can be seen in the instructional activities and enrichment activities. In the normal classroom, higher-achieving students may not often be challenged to go above and beyond baseline expectations. For students who have demonstrated mastery of the unit content, offering enrichment activities allows for continued practice and unique ways to reinforce mastery of the learning objectives. Thus, the assessments and enrichment activities can be motivating if they are designed to help support students’ understanding of how the knowledge, skills, and attitudes will help them as future pharmacists. With the focus on goals related to the practice of pharmacy, this has positive effects on achievement and motivation. 27 , 28

While motivation is a large part of the mastery learning model, mastery learning also focuses on retrieval practice (ie, testing effect). At the end of each unit of instruction, a formative assessment is given, and it is well documented that these assessments are beneficial because of their ability to provide feedback. 7 , 8 However, these formative assessments allow students to apply what they learned and serve as a retrieval opportunity, both of which improve learning and metacognition. 29 , 30 For example, when students study a topic and are provided an opportunity to restudy the material or retrieve information (eg, complete an assessment), the students that retrieve information have better retention of material, with medium to large effect sizes. 30

Finally, the mastery model provides for repeated feedback. Feedback is an essential strategy for learning, leading to large effect sizes. 31 In the mastery model, feedback is provided at each step, usually tied to an assessment. Giving explicit feedback in mastery learning courses allows the teacher to “prescribe” corrective exercises specific to each student’s learning situation. This minimizes the attention given to less necessary topics that students may have already mastered.

Recommendations and Implementation Strategies for Mastery Learning

Table 1 summarizes recommendations for implementing mastery learning. Mastery learning has stemmed from primary and secondary education, where the cycle of topic acquisition to corrective activities and enrichment activities has been effectively used in a single class period. 4 In our view, this “microcycle” of mastery learning can be applied to health professions classrooms, but a longer macrocycle may be better suited for a competency-based curriculum. As a recommendation, the macrocycle may take days to weeks ( Figure 2 ). One of the challenges in the mastery learning model is that, traditionally, mastery of a topic prevents students from moving on to the next topic, which may not be completely feasible in the classroom setting. Regardless, stop points can be implemented, and students still have to ability to self-pace, achieving competency at their own rate.

Recommendations for Implementing Mastery Learning

Example of a Mastery Model for a Modern Curriculum.

Mastery learning could be very adaptable to the model of successive relearning. In successive relearning, students practice the to-be-learned content until a designated level of mastery is achieved in each of multiple practice sessions (ideally three to four different study sessions). 32-35 That is, a student would reach a mastery threshold on Day 1 and then again must obtain that level on subsequent study days. This can be incorporated into the mastery learning model because of the frequency of assessments. Thus, each mastery unit should include older material, and assessment should be cumulative (see later in this section and Table 1 for an example of quizzes, spacing, and blueprinting). Successive relearning, especially for conceptual material, has large effect sizes when measured by long-term retention. 33 Therefore, it may not be necessary to have high levels of initial learning (eg, high initial competency thresholds) because if the course is built to be more cumulative and students must relearn material throughout, those initial mastery levels can be low because the additional spacing will supersede the initial levels of learning. 34 Courses that want to maximize retention should avoid spending time and effort on learning to a high initial criterion (greater than 90%) but should instead devote those resources to subsequent relearning sessions.

Another addition to modernize the mastery model is to activate prior knowledge through baseline testing or activities. Some proponents of mastery learning promote baseline assessment of knowledge and skills. 36 This suggestion would be in line with the literature on the importance of prior knowledge being the basis for new learning. As such, bringing that baseline understanding to light can help customize the learning experience. 37 , 38 Before each unit, a baseline test can help provide feedback regarding areas on which the student can focus for the upcoming unit and reactivate prior knowledge; this can be done with multiple-choice testing. 39-41

After a baseline assessment, the first traditional part of mastery learning acquiring knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes. In the mastery learning model, there is no specific guidance on how this occurs, and, as such, we can rely on current best practices. For knowledge acquisition, part of the strategy may be self-directed learning or guided self-paced instruction, as these may be most cost-effective because of their efficiency. 42 This can be combined with peer-to-peer interaction (collaborative learning, peer instruction, cooperative learning) where students can discuss and generate their own understanding. Peer-to-peer instruction can help facilitate the application of knowledge, the development of skills, or the development of values and attitudes. Peer-to-peer instruction has a large effect size in meta-analyses. 43 , 44

During this acquisition phase, we can also apply components of retrieval and spacing like successive relearning. In the successive relearning model, students can test themselves on these key concepts and, when correct, can remove them from their study session. 35 Then the next session, they retest the new and old concepts, and, again, when they correctly solve the problem or remember the key concept, they can drop it and repeat the cycle at some later time.

The last part of the acquisition phase can include opportunities for students to get questions answered from instructors or experts for the concepts that are still unclear. Here, key features include corrective feedback and modeling of the thought process.

The formative assessment’s goal is to manage learning. 9 As such, these assessments occur in short intervals. After a topic is sufficiently learned, the formative assessment takes place and is a check to make sure students are making progress as they practice. This assessment should be no or low stakes. As with any assessment, it should be appropriately blueprinted to ensure adequate sampling of the competencies ( Table 2 ). 45 Blueprinting would also help with any retesting to ensure consistency in assessing the learning objectives. The use of software packages (eg, ExamSoft) may facilitate the tagging of questions and allow for easier topic-level feedback. The threshold for this assessment should be high enough where the instructor feels students have learned enough to move on successfully but not too high as to make it unreasonable. We also recommend having these assessments be cumulative (see prior discussion on successive relearning).

Example of Assessment Blueprint Based on the Impact and Frequency of the Topic With Spacing of Topics to Help Optimize Learning (based on reference 45 )

Students who do not successfully achieve mastery after the first formative assessment should be given prescriptive feedback. Strong feedback is based on an observable task, is highly specific, and is based on standards. 46 Feedback is most beneficial when it is provided for incorrect answers than correct answers, for correct answers when feedback is delayed, or correct answers when they are made with low confidence. 31 Feedback should be tied to specific learning objectives to ensure corrective activities are tailored to a student’s situation. General feedback, for example, a score in percentage, is not helpful in diagnosing individual learning difficulties or prescribing remediation procedures. 3 Thus, feedback needs to be specific. This feedback can be automated to some degree through most learning management software. Correction needs to involve strategies that differ from the original means of study. 4 Like in the acquisition phase, various strategies can be used, such as self-explanation or instructional explaining or other methods that reduce misconceptions. 47-49

In the area of retesting, the recommendations are to maintain the same blueprint as the original assessment. The timing of retesting may vary based on the time it takes students to study the material to pass. One strategy may be to include retesting material on future quizzes. The advantage is there is no need to have additional testing time, but the downside is the remediation session overlaps with the new learning session, which would be an additional burden for a struggling student. Remediation times could be set, in that students would have a fixed number of days to restudy and retest. 50 This time could be used for the other students to complete enrichment activities. Another alternative is optional midterms. These would allow those that need to retest an opportunity to study and be tested and may give the other students an opportunity to earn points toward summative assessments.

For enrichment activities, it may be advantageous to pull in future course work that is related to a topic. First, this falls in line with competency-based education in that students can proceed at their own pace until they reach competency. By bringing some of the future work backward, those students that excel can learn more quickly. As mentioned, extra credit may be used to incentivize completion early on. Alternatively, completion of enrichment activities could be used to lower thresholds on summative assessments. Table 3 shows what a sample course may look like using the mastery learning model.

Example of Mastery Learning for a Foundational Pharmacokinetics Course

Benefits and Potential Pitfalls

Poignant issues in education include disability (invisible and visible) and diversity, equity, and inclusion. The sentiment that everyone can learn is apparent in the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework. The UDL framework has three principle components, namely to provide multiple means of representation (the “what” of learning), provide multiple means of action or expression (the “how” of learning), and to provide multiple means of engagement (the “why” of learning). 51 The mastery learning approach addresses all three principles. For example, mastery learning addresses the “multiple means” principle because it typically has multiple ways for students to acquire the required knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Consistent with multiple means of engagement, if a student does not acquire mastery in the first attempt, the corrective activities will address a different method of instruction. Similarly, the various approaches to learning, the corrective activities, the enrichment activities, and the multiple chances and formats to demonstrate mastery capture all three principles. Because the UDL framework preceded the original work within the mastery model, there are scholarly opportunities to merge the two frameworks.

A concern with any course format is the issue of faculty workload. In the mastery model, there should be feedback, multiple versions of assessments, and overall tracking; with this comes the issue of workload. For feedback, there are numerous opportunities to automate feedback through learning management systems and other educational software (eg, ExamSoft). Assessments are linked to outcomes and reports generated on success of moving toward that desired outcome. While this may take upfront work, such a program would be reusable year to year. For multiple versions of assessments, this again may take upfront work but would be reusable year to year. There is less concern about assessment security because the goal is primarily for feedback and drive learning. The exception would be the summative assessments, which may require yearly updating, but this practice can be faculty dependent.

Another concern may be the impact of one course designed with a mastery learning framework or multiple courses in each semester and the student workload. Currently, a pharmacy curriculum may have multiple courses that use team-based learning or are flipped, which may involve similar dilemmas regarding how to manage student time. For example, one university has testing curriculum-wide, meaning each course is assessed with one test every few weeks, and then feedback and corrective activities are provided. 50 The coordinated effort can help alleviate the additional work that may occur with several courses running independently. In schools of medicine, there are accreditation standards regarding monitoring student time. With appropriate oversight and guidance, setting limits on required (eg, preclass activities) and nonrequired elements (eg, general study) may be helpful in managing multiple classes.

Mastery learning has been associated with improved learning outcomes when compared to more traditional methods of learning. Mastery learning also has a strong theoretical basis. This framework may be a viable approach to address the desire for competency-based education, and more work is needed on four fronts. The first is on how to implement mastery learning curriculum-wide. Second, we need to know how mastery learning compares to the current “engaged” or high-structure instructional settings (eg, flipped classrooms or team-based learning). Third, we must know how mastery learning can be used to better communicate standards and achievement to outside stakeholders. Fourth, it is critical to understand how to best optimize mastery learning given the current evidence on best practices in education.

Tips for Teaching Professors

Tip: Multiple Ways to Show Mastery

Offering students choice about how to organize and communicate what they’ve learned while emphasizing the same core skills..

Three weeks ago I shared thoughts on planning for flexibility by  designing for online delivery of content and activities , and then I wrote about creating more low-stakes assignments  - two small steps towards more flexible, student-centered design choices can help students be more successful. I skipped a week to write about ways we can show respect for our students’ religious and cultural observances for the start of Ramadan last Tuesday, but now I am back to student-centered design with some ideas for allowing students multiple ways of demonstrating mastery of course content & skills.

Creative assignment choices allow more students to demonstrate mastery of key course concepts while maintaining high standards for student learning outcomes.

Take a typical high-stakes course assignment & and re-think its purpose and goals

What learning outcomes are demonstrated by successful completion?

How else could students demonstrate these outcomes?

A key assignment in the courses I teach is learning to write a research paper. I shared some alternatives to the traditional research paper in a post last summer where I walked through how a research paper-type assignment could be re-imagined within different disciplines. My students are typically learning the research process for the first time in my course, and so my goals are less about the topic of what they are researching and more about the development of research skills and written communication skills.

For my students then, the goals of writing a research paper might be to demonstrate critical thinking & communication skills and apply foundational research skills to address a research question . To demonstrate that they have met these objectives, what could they do other than a traditional research paper ?

Interview an expert: Students could draft questions based on research, and then conduct the interview or write logical responses if “interviewing” someone no longer alive or simply not available

Create a poster or infographic: After researching a topic, students could present it as a poster or infographic that other students will use to learn about the topic

Simulations of real-life projects: Use research to prepare a grant or research proposal, marketing or business plan, or solution to a problem.

Are these ( or the other examples ) really so different from a research paper? Not terribly, no. Which is the point - students are still learning the same core skills, they just have some choices about how to organize and communicate what they’ve learned.

Request a future TIP topic!

Share Tips for Teaching Professors

Follow @breana

Ready for more?

Assessment in Mastery Learning

• First Online: 11 March 2020

Cite this chapter

• Celia Laird O’Brien 6 ,
• Mark Adler 7 &
• William C. McGaghie 8  

Part of the book series: Comprehensive Healthcare Simulation ((CHS))

999 Accesses

1 Citations

The purpose of assessment in mastery learning is to promote learner improvement. Assessment is a key and indispensable feature of the mastery learning bundle. Mastery learning approaches are linked to the ability to make accurate decisions. Accurate decisions depend on reliable data that have been collected using instruments and methods linked to curriculum learning objectives. This chapter has six sections that reveal the ways that instruction and assessment are inseparable in mastery learning: (a) curriculum and instruction, (b) validity argument, (c) assessment context, (d) assessment measures, (e) data, and (f) decisions. Health professions educators must collect validity evidence regularly to support the validity argument that they are making accurate decisions about learners at each step of assessment design and implementation.

• Accurate decisions
• Assessment of learning
• Data collection
• Deliberate practice
• Learning sciences
• Mastery learning
• Reliable measurement
• Validity argument

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Popham WJ. Criterion-referenced measurement. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1978.

Google Scholar  

McGaghie WC. Mastery learning: it is time for medical education to join the 21st century. Acad Med. 2015;90(11):1438–41.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Grigorenko EL, Sternberg RJ. Dynamic testing. Psychol Bull. 1998;124(1):75–111.

Article   Google Scholar  

van der Vleuten CPM, Schuwirth LWT. Assessing professional competence: from methods to programmes. Med Educ. 2005;39(3):309–17.

Lineberry M, Park YS, Cook DA, Yudkowsky R. Making the case for mastery learning assessments: key issues in validation and justification. Acad Med. 2015;90(11):1445–50.

McGaghie WC. Evaluation apprehension and impression management in clinical medical education. Acad Med. 2018;93(5):685–6.

Rosenbaum L. Cursed by knowledge—building a culture of psychological safety. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(8):786–90.

Richardson L. Writing strategies: reaching diverse audiences, Qualitative research methods series, vol. 21. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications; 1990.

Book   Google Scholar  

Thomas PA, Kern DE, Hughes MT, Chen BY. Curriculum development for medical education: a six-step approach. 3rd ed. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2016.

McGaghie WC, Harris IB. Learning theory foundations of simulation-based mastery learning. Simul Healthc. 2018;13:S15.

Ericsson KA. Deliberate practice and the acquisition and maintenance of expert performance in medicine and related domains. Acad Med. 2004;79(10, Suppl):S70–81.

Ericsson KA, Whyte J, Ward P. Expert performance in nursing: reviewing research on expertise in nursing within the framework of the expert-performance approach. Adv Nurs Sci. 2007;30(1):E58–71.

Ericsson KA. Acquisition and maintenance of medical expertise: a perspective from the expert-performance approach with deliberate practice. Acad Med. 2015;90(11):1471–86.

Davis DA, Mazmanian PE, Fordis M, et al. Accuracy of physician self-assessment compared with observed measures of competence: a systematic review. JAMA. 2006;296:1094–102.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Eva KW, Cunnington JPW, Reiter HI, et al. How can I know what I don’t know? Poor self-assessment in a well-defined domain. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2004;9(3):211–24.

Sargeant J, Mann K, van der Vleuten C, Metsemakers J. “Directed” self-assessment: practice and feedback within a social context. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2008;28:47–54.

Bandura A. Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In: Pajores P, Urdan T, editors. Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing; 2006. p. 307–37.

Schuwirth L, Ash J. Assessing tomorrow’s learners: in competency-based education only a radically different holistic method of assessment will work. Six things we could forget. Med Teach. 2013;35:555–9.

Hodges B. Assessment in the post-psychometric era: learning to love the subjective and collective. Med Teach. 2013;35:564–8.

Lockyer J, Carraccio C, Chan M-K, et al. Core principles of assessment in competency-based medical education. Med Teach. 2017;39960:609–16.

Gruppen LD, ten Cate O, Lingard LA, et al. Enhanced requirements for assessment in a competency-based, time variable medical education system. Acad Med. 2018;93:S17–21.

O’Brien CL, Sanguino SM, Thomas JX, Green MM. Feasibility and outcomes of implementing a portfolio assessment system alongside a traditional grading system. Acad Med. 2016;91(11):1554–60.

Messick S. Standards of validity and the validity of standards in performance assessment. Educ Meas Issues Pract. 1995;14(4):5–8.

Kane MT. Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. J Educ Meas. 2013;50(1):1–73.

Cook DA, Brydges R, Ginsburg S, Hatala RA. A contemporary approach to validity arguments: a practical guide to Kane’s framework. Med Educ. 2015;49(6):560–75.

Cook DA, Hatala RA. Validation of educational assessments: a primer for simulation and beyond. Adv Simul. 2016;1(1):31.

Boulet JR, Jeffries PR, Hatala RA, et al. Research regarding methods of assessing learning outcomes. Simul Healthc. 2011;6(Suppl):S48–51.

McGaghie WC. Medical education research as translational science. Sci Trans Med. 2010;2:19cm8.

Singh T, Norcini JJ. Workplace-based assessment. In: McGaghie WC, editor. International best practices for evaluation in the health professions. London: Radcliffe Publishing Ltd; 2013.

Laufer S, D’Angelo A-LD, Kwan C, et al. Rescuing the clinical breast examination: advances in classifying technique and assessing physician competency. Ann Surg. 2017;266(6):1069–74.

McGaghie WC, Issenberg SB. Simulations in assessment. In: Downing SM, Yudkowsky R, editors. Assessment in health professions education. New York: Routledge; 2009. p. 245–68.

Gordon MS, Issenberg SB. Instructor guide for Harvey the cardiovascular patient simulator. University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Gordon Center for Research in Medical Education; 2006.

Miller MD, Linn RL, Gronlund NE. Measurement and assessment in teaching. 11th ed. New York: Pearson; 2013.

National Council of State Boards of Nursing. NCLEX – RN Examination: detailed test plan for the National Council licensure examination for registered nurses. Chicago: NCSBN; 2015.

Jurich D, Duhigs LM, Plumb TJ, et al. Performance on the nephrology in-training examination and ABIM nephrology certification examination outcomes. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2018;13(5):710–7.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. Certification examination in child and adolescent psychiatry: 2017 content blueprint and 2017 content outline. Available at: https://www.abpn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/2017_Child_and_Adolescent_Psychiatry_CERT_Conteny_specifications.pdf .

Korea Health Personnel Licensing Examination Institute. Health professional examination guides. Available at: http://www.kuksiwon.or.kr/EngHome?context.aspx?page=sub_2_1&sub=1# .

Gallagher AG, O’Sullivan GC. Fundamentals of surgical simulation. New York: Springer; 2012.

Laufer S, Cohen ER, Kwan C, et al. Sensor technology in assessments of clinical skill (research letter). N Engl J Med. 2015;372(8):784–6.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Heiman HL, Rasminsky S, Bierman JA, et al. Medical students’ observations, practices, and attitudes regarding electronic health record documentation. Teach Learn Med. 2014;26(1):49–55.

Cresswell JW, Plano Clark VL. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2018.

Jordan M. For the love of the game. New York: Crown Publishers; 1998.

Downing SM. Reliability: on the reproducibility of assessment data. Med Educ. 2004;38:1006–12.

Brennan RL. Generalizability theory. Educ Meas Issues Prac. 1992;11(4):27–34.

Barsuk JH, Cohen ER, Wayne DB, et al. A comparison of approaches to mastery learning standard setting. Acad Med. 2018;93(7):1079–84.

Govaerts MJB, van der Vleuten CPM, Holmboe ES. Managing tensions in assessment: moving beyond either-or thinking. Med Educ. 2019;53:64–75.

Schoenherr JR, Hamstra SJ. Psychometrics and its discontents: an historical perspective on the discourse of the measurement tradition. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2016;21:719–29.

Watling CJ, Ginsburg S. Assessment, feedback and the alchemy of learning. Med Educ. 2019;53:76–85.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Department of Medical Education, Chicago, IL, USA

Celia Laird O’Brien

Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Departments of Pediatrics and Medical Education, Chicago, IL, USA

Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Departments of Medical Education and Preventive Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA

William C. McGaghie

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Celia Laird O’Brien .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Departments of Medicine and Medical Education, Chicago, IL, USA

Jeffrey H. Barsuk

Diane B. Wayne

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

O’Brien, C.L., Adler, M., McGaghie, W.C. (2020). Assessment in Mastery Learning. In: McGaghie, W., Barsuk, J., Wayne, D. (eds) Comprehensive Healthcare Simulation: Mastery Learning in Health Professions Education. Comprehensive Healthcare Simulation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34811-3_5

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34811-3_5

Published : 11 March 2020

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-34810-6

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-34811-3

eBook Packages : Medicine Medicine (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Mastery Learning Research Paper

This sample education research paper on Mastery Learning features: 5500 words (approx. 18 pages) and a bibliography with 52 sources. Browse other research paper examples for more inspiration. If you need a thorough research paper written according to all the academic standards, you can always turn to our experienced writers for help. This is how your paper can get an A! Feel free to contact our writing service for professional assistance. We offer high-quality assignments for reasonable rates.

Over the last four decades, few programs have been implemented as broadly or evaluated as thoroughly as those associated with mastery learning. Programs based on mastery learning operate today in nations throughout the world and at every level of education. When compared to students in traditionally taught classes, students in mastery learning classes consistently have been shown to learn better, reach higher levels of achievement, and develop greater confidence in their ability to learn and in themselves as learners (Anderson, 1994; Guskey & Pigott, 1988; C. C. Kulik, Kulik, & Bangert-Drowns, 1990).

Academic Writing, Editing, Proofreading, And Problem Solving Services

Get 10% off with 24start discount code.

This research paper describes how mastery learning originated and the essential elements involved in its implementation. It discusses the improvements in student learning that typically result from the use of mastery learning and how this strategy provides practical solutions to a variety of pressing instructional problems. Finally it explains the common misinterpretations of mastery learning and summarizes the results of research on its effects.

John B. Carroll’s Model for School Learning

Although the basic tenets of mastery learning can be traced to such early educators as Comenius, Pestalozzi, and Herbart, a major influence on the development of modern versions was a 1963 article by Harvard University professor John B. Carroll entitled, “A Model for School Learning.” In this article, Carroll challenged long-held notions about student aptitude. He pointed out that student aptitude traditionally had been viewed as the level to which a child could learn a particular subject. Children with high aptitude would be able to learn the most complex aspects of that subject, while those with low aptitude would be able to learn only the most basic elements. When aptitude is viewed in this way, children are seen as either good learners (high aptitude) or poor learners (low aptitude) with regard to the subject.

Carroll argued, however, that student aptitude more accurately reflects an index of learning rate. That is, all children have the potential to learn quite well but differ primarily in terms of the time they require to do so. Some children are able to learn a subject very quickly while others may take much longer. When aptitude is viewed as an index of learning rate, children are seen not simply as good and poor learners but rather as fast and slow learners.

Carroll then proposed a model for school learning based on this alternative view of aptitude. He believed that if each child were allowed the time needed to learn a subject to some criterion level, and if the child spent that time appropriately, then the child probably would attain the specified level of achievement. But if not enough time were allowed or if the child did not spend the time required, then the child would learn much less. The degree of learning attained by a child, therefore, can be expressed by the following simple equation:

Degree of learning f = (time spent/ time needed)

In other words, degree of learning is a function of the time a child actually spends on learning relative to the time he or she needs to spend. If the time spent were equal to time needed, the learning would be complete and the equation would equal 1. If the time spent were less than the time needed, however, the learning would be incomplete by that proportion.

Carroll further identified the factors that he believed influenced the time spent and the time needed. He argued that both of these elements were affected by characteristics of the learner and by characteristics of the instruction. Specifically, he believed that the time spent was determined by a child’s perseverance and the opportunity to learn. Perseverance is simply the amount of time a child is willing to spend actively engaged in learning. Opportunity to learn is the classroom time allotted to the learning. Time spent is determined by the child’s persistence at a learning task and the amount of learning time provided. Time needed, on the other hand, Carroll believed was determined by the child’s learning rate for that subject, the quality of the instruction, and the child’s ability to understand the instruction, specifically represented by the following equation:

Degree of learning f =(perseverance, opportunity to learn\ learning rate, quality of instruction, ability to understand the instruction)

Again, a child’s learning rate is a measure of the time required by the child to learn the concepts or skills under ideal instructional conditions. If the quality of the instruction were high, then the child would readily understand it and would probably need little time to learn. If the quality of the instruction were not as high, however, then the child would have greater difficulty understanding and would require much more time to learn. The quality of the instruction and the child’s ability to understand the instruction interact to determine how much time is needed for the child to learn the concepts or skills.

Carroll’s article made a significant contribution to learning theory. It set forth new guidelines for research into the concept of aptitude and identified specific factors that influence learning in school settings. His ideas about learning rate also prompted the development of numerous individualized instruction programs that allowed students to progress through a series of learning units at their own, self-determined pace. Two of the best known of these continuous progress programs were Individually Prescribed Instruction (IPI), developed at the University of Pittsburgh (Glaser, 1966), and Individually Guided Education (IGE), developed at the University of Wisconsin (Klausmeier, Rossmiller, & Saily, 1977). Carroll himself, however, did not address the problem of how to provide sufficient time or how to improve instructional quality. These issues were left unresolved.

Benjamin S. Bloom’s Learning for Mastery

During the 1960s, Benjamin S. Bloom and his students at the University of Chicago were deeply involved in research on individual differences and ways to improve the teaching and learning process. Bloom was impressed by the optimism of Carroll’s perspective on learners and particularly by the idea that students differ in terms of the time required for learning rather than their ability to learn. If aptitude were indeed predictive of the time a child would require to learn, Bloom believed it should be possible to set the degree of learning expected of each child at some mastery performance level. Then by attending to the instructional variables under teachers’ control—the opportunity to learn and the quality of the instruction—teachers should be able to ensure that every child attains that specified level. Bloom believed that if sufficient time and appropriate instruction were provided virtually all students could learn.

To determine how this might be practically achieved, Bloom first considered how teaching and learning take place in typical group-based classroom settings. He observed that most teachers begin by dividing the concepts and skills that they want students to learn into smaller learning units. These units are usually sequentially ordered and often correspond to the research papers in the textbook used. Teachers then teach the unit concepts to all students in the same way, provide all students with the same amount of time to learn, and evaluate students’ learning at the end with some form of test or assessment. The few students for whom the instructional methods and time were ideal learn excellently and perform well on the unit assessment. The largest number of students, for whom the methods and time were only moderately appropriate, learn less well. And students for whom the instruction and time were inappropriate due to differences in their backgrounds or learning styles learn very little and perform poorly on the unit assessment. Little variation in the teaching resulted in great variation in student learning. Under these conditions the pattern of student achievement was similar to the normal curve distribution shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1      Distribution of Achievement in Traditional Classrooms

To attain better results and reduce this variation in student achievement, Bloom reasoned that we would have to increase variation in the teaching. That is, because students vary in their learning styles and aptitudes, teachers must diversify and differentiate instruction to better meet students’ individual learning needs. The challenge was to find practical ways to do this within the constraints of group-based classrooms so that all students could learn well.

In searching for such a strategy, Bloom drew primarily from two sources of evidence. First, he considered the ideal teaching and learning situation in which an excellent tutor is paired with each student. He was particularly influenced by the work of early pioneers in individualized instruction, especially Washburne (1922) and his Winnetka Plan, and Morrison (1926) and his University of Chicago Laboratory School experiments. In examining this evidence, Bloom tried to determine what crucial elements in one-on-one tutoring and individualized instruction could be transferred to group-based classroom settings.

Second, Bloom looked at studies of the learning strategies of academically successful students, especially the work of Dollard and Miller (1950). From this research he tried to identify the activities of high-achieving students in group-based classrooms that distinguish them from their less successful classmates.

Bloom saw value in teachers’ traditional practice of organizing the concepts and skills they want students to learn into learning units. He also thought it important for teachers to assess student learning at the end of each unit. But the classroom assessments most teachers used seemed to do little more than show for whom their initial instruction was or was not appropriate.

Bloom believed that a far better approach would be for teachers to use their classroom assessments as learning tools, and then to follow those assessments with a feedback and corrective procedure. Instead of using assessments only as evaluation devices that mark the end of each unit, Bloom recommended using them as part of the instructional process to diagnose individual learning difficulties (feedback) and to prescribe remediation procedures (correctives).

This is precisely what takes place when an excellent tutor works with an individual student. If the student makes an error, the tutor first points out the error (feedback) and then follows up with further explanation and clarification (correctives) to ensure the student’s understanding. Similarly, academically successful students typically follow up the mistakes they make on quizzes and assessments. They ask the teacher about the items they missed, look up the answer in the textbook or other resources, or rework the problem or task so that they do not repeat those errors.

With this in mind, Bloom outlined an instructional strategy to make use of this feedback and corrective procedure, labeling it “Learning for Mastery” (Bloom, 1968) and later shortening it to simply “Mastery Learning” (Bloom, 1971a). To use this strategy, teachers first organize the concepts and skills they want students to learn into learning units that typically involve about a week or two of instructional time. Following initial instruction on the unit, teachers administer a brief quiz or assessment based on the unit’s learning goals. Instead of signifying the end of the unit, however, this assessment’s purpose is to give students information, or feedback, about their learning. To emphasize this new purpose, Bloom suggested calling it a formative assessment, meaning “to inform or provide information.” A formative assessment identifies for students precisely what they have learned well to that point and what they need to learn better (Bloom, Hastings, & Madaus, 1971).

Paired with each formative assessment are specific corrective activities for students to use in correcting their learning difficulties. Most teachers match these correctives to each item or set of prompts within the assessment so that students need to work on only those concepts or skills not yet mastered. In other words, the correctives are individualized. Correctives may point out additional sources of information on a particular concept, such as page numbers in the textbook or workbook where the concept is discussed. They may identify alternative learning resources such as different textbooks, learning kits, alternative materials, CDs, videos, or Web-based instructional lessons. Or they may simply suggest sources of additional practice, such as study guides, computer exercises, independent or guided practice activities, or collaborative group activities.

With the feedback and corrective information gained from the formative assessment, each student has a detailed prescription of what more needs to be done to master the concepts or skills from the unit. This just-in-time correction prevents minor learning difficulties from accumulating and becoming major learning problems. It also gives teachers a practical means to vary and differentiate their instruction in order to better meet students’ individual learning needs. As a result, many more students learn well, master the important learning goals in each unit, and gain the necessary prerequisites for success in subsequent units.

When students complete their corrective activities after a class period or two, Bloom recommended they take a second formative assessment. This second, parallel assessment covers the same concepts and skills as the first, but is composed of slightly different problems or questions and serves two important purposes. First, it verifies whether the correctives were successful in helping students overcome their individual learning difficulties. Second, it offers students a second chance at success and, hence, has powerful motivational value.

Some students, of course, will perform well on the first assessment, demonstrating that they have mastered the unit concepts and skills. The teacher’s initial instruction was highly appropriate for these students, and they have no need for corrective work. To ensure continued learning progress for these students, Bloom recommended that teachers provide them with special enrichment or extension activities to broaden their learning experiences. Enrichment activities are often self-selected by students and might involve special projects or reports, academic  games, or a variety of complex, problem-solving tasks. Figure 2 illustrates this instructional sequence.

Figure 2  The Mastery Learning Instructional Process

Bloom believed all students could receive a more appropriate quality of instruction through this process than is possible under more traditional approaches to teaching. As a result, nearly all students might be expected to learn well and truly master the unit concepts or learning goals (Bloom, 1976). This, in turn, would drastically reduce the variation in students’ achievement levels, eliminate achievement gaps, and yield a distribution of achievement more like that shown in Figure 3.

In describing mastery learning, Bloom emphasized that reducing variation in students’ achievement does not imply making all students the same. Even under these more favorable learning conditions, some students undoubtedly will learn more than others, especially those involved in enrichment activities. But Bloom believed the variation among students in how well they learn specific concepts or master a set of articulated learning goals could eventually reach a “vanishing point” if teachers recognized relevant, individual differences among students and then altered instruction to better meet their diverse learning needs (Bloom, 1971b). In other words, all students could learn well the knowledge and skills prescribed in the curriculum. As a result, gaps in the achievement of different groups of students would be closed.

Figure 3  Distribution of Achievement in Mastery Learning Classrooms

The Essential Elements of Mastery Learning

After Benjamin Bloom described his ideas, several of his students took up the task of clarifying mastery learning instructional strategies (e.g., Block, Efthim, & Burns, 1989), and numerous programs based on mastery learning principles sprung up in schools throughout the United States and around the world (see Postlethwaite & Hag-garty, 1998; Reezigt & Weide, 1990; Wu, 1994; Yildiran, 2006). Although differing from setting to setting, those programs true to Bloom’s ideas include two essential elements: the feedback, corrective, and enrichment process, and (2) instructional alignment (Guskey, 1997a).

Feedback, Correctives, and Enrichment

Teachers who use mastery learning provide students with frequent and specific feedback on their learning progress through regular, formative classroom assessments. This feedback is both diagnostic and prescriptive. It reinforces precisely what students were expected to learn, identifies what they learned well, and describes what needs to be learned better. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) emphasizes this same element in its latest iteration of the standards for school mathematics. To overcome inequities in mathematics instruction, NCTM stresses the use of assessments that support learning and provide useful information to both teachers and students (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM], 2000).

Feedback alone, however, does little to help students improve their learning. Significant improvement requires that feedback be paired with correctives: activities that offer guidance and direction to students on how to remedy their learning problems. Because of students’ individual differences, no single method of instruction works best for all. To help every student learn well, therefore, teachers must differentiate their instruction, both in their initial teaching and especially through the corrective activities (Bloom, 1976). In other words, teachers must increase variation in their teaching to decrease variation in results.

To be effective, correctives must be qualitatively different from the initial teaching. They must provide students who need it with an alternative approach and additional time to learn. The best correctives present concepts differently and involve students in learning differently than did the initial instruction. They incorporate different learning styles, learning modalities, or types of intelligence. Although developing effective correctives can prove challenging, many schools find that providing teachers with time to work collaboratively—sharing ideas, materials, and expertise—greatly facilitates the process (Guskey, 2001).

Most applications of mastery learning also include enrichment or extension activities for students who master the unit concepts from the initial instruction. As described earlier, enrichment activities offer students exciting opportunities to broaden and expand their learning. They reward students for their learning success and challenge them to go further. Many teachers draw from activities developed for gifted and talented students when planning enrichment activities, both to simplify implementation tasks and to guarantee these students a high-quality learning experience.

Teachers implement the feedback, corrective, and enrichment process in a variety of ways. Many use short, paper-and-pencil quizzes as formative assessments to give students feedback on their learning progress. But formative assessments also can take the form of essays, compositions, projects, reports, performance tasks, skill demonstrations, oral presentations, or any device used to gain evidence on students’ learning progress. In essence, teachers adapt the format of their formative assessments to match their instructional goals.

After administering a formative assessment, some teachers divide the class into separate corrective and enrichment groups. While the teacher directs corrective activities, guaranteeing that all students who need the extra time and assistance take part, the other students work on self-selected, independent enrichment activities. Other teachers pair with colleagues and use a team-teaching approach. While one teacher oversees corrective activities, the other monitors enrichments. Still other teachers use cooperative learning activities in which students work together in teams to ensure all reach the mastery level. Since students have their own personal scores on the formative assessment, individual accountability is ensured. Offering the entire team special recognition or credit if all members attain mastery on the second formative assessment encourages group responsibility.

Feedback, corrective, and enrichment procedures are crucial to mastery learning, for it is through these procedures that mastery learning differentiates and individualizes instruction. In every learning unit, students who need extended time and opportunity to remedy learning problems receive these through the correctives. Students who learn quickly and find the initial instruction highly appropriate have opportunities to extend their learning through enrichment. As a result, all students experience more favorable learning conditions and more appropriate, higher quality instruction (Bloom, 1977).

Instructional Alignment

While feedback, correctives, and enrichment are important, they alone do not constitute mastery learning. Bloom stressed that to be truly effective they must be combined with the second essential element of mastery learning: instructional alignment. Reducing variation in student learning and closing achievement gaps requires clarity and consistency among all instructional components (Bloom, 1971a).

Bloom believed three major components composed the teaching and learning process. To begin there must be specific ideas about what students are expected to learn and be able to do—that is, learning goals or standards. Next comes instruction that ideally results in proficient learners—students who have learned well and whose proficiency can be assessed through some form of assessment or evaluation. Mastery learning adds a feedback and corrective component, allowing teachers to determine for whom their initial instruction was appropriate and for whom an alternative approach may be needed.

Although essentially neutral with regard to what is taught, how it is taught, and how learning is assessed or evaluated, mastery learning requires consistency or alignment among these instructional components, as shown in Figure 4. For example, if students are expected to learn higher-level skills such as those involved in making applications, solving complex problems, or developing thoughtful analyses, mastery learning stipulates that instructional activities must be planned to give students opportunities to practice and actively engage in those skills. It also requires that students be given specific feedback on how well they have learned those skills, coupled with directions on how to correct any learning errors. Finally, procedures for assessing or evaluating students’ learning should reflect those higher-level skills as well.

Figure 4      Major Components in the Teaching and Learning Process

To ensure alignment among instructional components, teachers must make a number of crucial decisions. First, they need to decide what concepts or skills are most important for students to learn and most central to students’ understanding. Teachers must determine, for example, if they want students to learn only basic skills or if they want students to develop higher-level skills and more complex cognitive processes. Second, teachers need to decide what evidence best reflects students’ mastery of those basic or

higher-level skills. Critics sometimes challenge teachers’ abilities to make these crucial decisions. But, in essence, teachers at all levels already make these decisions in conducting regular classroom activities. Every time they administer an assessment, grade a paper, or evaluate students’ learning, teachers communicate to students what is most important to learn. Using mastery learning simply compels teachers to make these decisions more thoughtfully, intentionally, and purposefully.

Misinterpretations of Mastery Learning

Shortly after Bloom presented his ideas on mastery learning, people began to misinterpret them. Some early attempts to apply mastery learning, for example, were based on narrow and inaccurate understandings of Bloom’s theory. These efforts focused only on low-level cognitive skills, attempted to break down learning into small segments, and insisted that students master each segment before being permitted to move on. Teachers were regarded in these programs as little more than managers of materials and record-keepers of student progress. Unfortunately, similar misinterpretations of mastery learning persist.

Nowhere in Bloom’s writing, however, can this kind of narrowness and rigidity be found. In fact, Bloom emphasized quite the opposite. He considered thoughtful and reflective teachers vital to the successful implementation of mastery learning and continually stressed flexibility in its application. In his earliest description of the process, Bloom wrote:

There are many alternative strategies for mastery learning. Each strategy must find some way of dealing with individual differences in learners through some means of relating the instruction to the needs and characteristics of the learners. . . . The nongraded school is one attempt to provide an organizational structure that permits and encourages mastery learning. (1968, pp. 7-8)

Bloom further emphasized his belief that instruction in mastery learning classrooms should focus on higher-level learning goals, not simply basic skills. He noted:

I find  great  emphasis on problem solving, applications of principles, analytical skills, and creativity. Such higher mental processes are emphasized because this type of learning enables the individual to relate his or her learning to the many problems he or she encounters in day-to-day living. These abilities are stressed because they are retained and utilized long after the individual has forgotten the detailed specifics of the subject matter taught in the schools. These abilities are regarded as one set of essential characteristics needed to continue learning and to cope with a rapidly changing world. (Bloom, 1978, p. 576)

Modern research studies have shown mastery learning to be particularly effective when applied to instruction focusing on higher-level learning goals such as problem solving, drawing inferences, deductive reasoning, and creative expression (Arredondo & Block, 1990; Kozlovsky, 1990; Mevarech, 1981). When well implemented, the process helps teachers improve student learning and close achievement gaps in a broad range of learning goals from basic skills to highly complex cognitive processes.

Another misinterpretation comes from educators who believe that the constraint of limited class time will inhibit efforts to implement mastery learning (Guskey, 1997a). They assume that the introduction of feedback, corrective, and enrichment procedures will reduce the amount of material teachers will be able to cover. Teachers fear they will have to sacrifice coverage for the sake of mastery. Minor alterations in instructional pacing typically resolve this concern.

Early mastery learning units usually do require more time. Teachers who allot class time for students to complete corrective activities often find themselves behind other teachers who teach in more traditional ways after the first two or three units. But once students become familiar with the process, mastery learning teachers generally pick up the pace. Because students in mastery learning classes spend a larger portion of their time actively engaged in learning, they make more rapid progress than students in traditionally taught classes (Fitzpatrick, 1985). As students catch on to the process, they also do better on first formative assessments. With fewer students involved in correctives and less corrective work needed, teachers reduce the class time allocated to corrective activities. And because mastery learning students learn well the concepts and skills from early units, they are better prepared for later, more advanced units. Instruction in later units can therefore be more rapid and include fewer review activities. Most teachers discover that with slight adjustments in the pacing of their instruction—slightly more time spent in early units but less time in later ones—they can cover just as much material using mastery learning, and in some cases more, as they were able to using more traditional approaches to instruction (Block, 1983).

Research Results and Implications

Teachers who implement mastery learning generally find that it requires only modest changes in their instructional procedures. Excellent teachers use many aspects of mastery learning in their classes already, and others discover that the process blends well with their current teaching strategies. This makes mastery learning particularly attractive to teachers at all levels, especially considering the difficulties associated with new approaches that require major changes in teaching procedures.

Despite the modest nature of these changes, however, extensive research evidence shows that the use of mastery learning can have exceptionally positive effects on student learning (Block et al., 1989; Guskey & Pigott, 1988). Evidence gathered in Asia (Wu, 1994), Australia (Chan, 1981), Europe (Langeheine, 1992; Mevarech, 1981; Reezigt & Weide, 1990), and the United States (Walberg, 1990) shows the careful and systematic application of these elements can lead to significant improvements in student learning outcomes. Some researchers even suggest that the superiority of Japanese students in international comparisons of achievement in mathematics operations and problem solving may be due largely to the widespread use of instructional practices similar to mastery learning in Japan (Nakajima, 2006; Waddington, 1995).

Long-term investigations have yielded similarly impressive results. A study by Whiting, Van Burgh, and Render (1995), representing 18 years of data gathered from over 7,000 high school students, showed mastery learning to have remarkably positive influence on students’ test scores and grade point averages as well as their attitudes toward school and learning. Another field experiment conducted in elementary and middle school classrooms showed that the implementation of mastery learning led to significantly positive increases in students’ academic achievement and their self-confidence (Anderson et al., 1992). Even more impressive, a comprehensive, meta-analysis review of the research on mastery learning by C. C. Kulik et al. (1990) concluded:

We recently reviewed meta-analyses in nearly 40 different areas of educational research (J. Kulik & Kulik, 1989). Few educational treatments of any sort were consistently associated with achievement effects as large as those produced by mastery learning. . . . In evaluation after evaluation, mastery programs have produced impressive gains. (C. C. Kulik et al., 1990, p. 292)

Research evidence also shows that the positive effects of mastery learning are not limited to cognitive or achievement outcomes. The process also yields improvements in students’ confidence in learning situations, school attendance rates, involvement in class sessions, attitudes toward learning, and a variety of other affective measures (Block et al., 1989; Guskey & Pigott, 1988; Whiting & Render, 1987). This multidimensional impact has been referred to as the “multiplier effect” of mastery learning and makes it one of the most cost-effective means of educational improvement.

It should be noted that one review of the research on mastery learning, contrary to all previous reviews, indicated that the process had essentially no effect on student achievement (Slavin, 1987). This finding surprised not only scholars familiar with the vast research literature on mastery learning showing it to yield very positive results, but also large numbers of practitioners who had experienced its positive effects firsthand. A close inspection of this review shows, however, that it was conducted using techniques of questionable validity (Hiebert, 1987), employed capricious selection criteria (J. A. Kulik, Kulik, & Bangert-Drowns, 1990), reported results in a biased manner (Bloom, 1987; Walberg, 1988), and drew conclusions not substantiated by the evidence presented (Guskey, 1987, 1988). Two much more extensive and methodologically sound reviews published since (Guskey & Pigott, 1988; C. C. Kulik et al., 1990) have verified mastery learning’s consistently positive effect on a broad range of student learning outcomes and, in one case (i.e., J. A. Kulik et al., 1990), showed clearly the distorted nature of this earlier report.

Researchers today generally recognize the value of the essential elements of mastery learning and their importance in effective teaching at any level of education. As a result, fewer studies are being conducted on the mastery learning process per se. Instead, researchers are looking for ways to enhance results further, adding additional elements to the mastery learning process that positively contribute to student learning in hopes of attaining even more impressive gains (Bloom, 1984). Work on the inte-gration of mastery learning with other innovative strategies appears especially promising (Guskey, 1997b).

In his later writing Bloom, too, described exciting work on other ideas designed to attain results even more positive than those typically achieved with mastery learning (Bloom, 1984). These ideas stemmed from the work of two of Bloom’s doctoral students, Anania (1981) and Burke (1983), who compared student learning under three different instructional conditions. The first was conventional instruction in which students were taught in group-based classes that included about 30 students and in which periodic assessments were given mainly for the purposes of grading. The second was mastery learning, in which students again were taught in group-based classes of about 30 students but were administered regular formative assessments for feedback, followed by individualized corrective instruction and parallel second assessments to determine the extent to which they mastered specific learning goals. The third was tutoring, where a good tutor was paired with each student. Students under tutoring were also administered regular formative assessments, along with corrective procedures and parallel second assessments, although the need for corrective work under tutoring was usually quite small.

The differences in students’ final achievement under these three conditions were striking. Using the standard deviation (sigma) of the control (conventional) class as the measure of difference, Bloom’s students discovered that:

The average student under tutoring was about two standard deviations above the average of the control class (the average tutored student was above 98% of the students in the control class). The average student under mastery learning was about one standard deviation above the average of the control class (the average mastery learning student was above 84% of the students in the control class). . . . Thus under the best learning conditions we can devise (tutoring), the average student is 2 sigma above the average control student taught under conventional group methods of instruction. (Bloom, 1984, p. 4)

Bloom referred to this as the “2 Sigma Problem”:

The tutoring process demonstrates that most students do have the potential to reach this high level of learning. I believe an important task of research and instruction is to seek ways of accomplishing this under more practical and realistic conditions than the one-to-one tutoring, which is too costly for most societies to bear on a large scale. This is the “2 Sigma” problem. Can researchers and teachers devise teaching-learning conditions that will enable the majority of students under group instruction to attain levels of achievement that can at present be reached only under tutoring conditions? (Bloom, 1984, pp. 4-5)

Bloom believed that attaining this high level of achievement would probably require more than just improvements in the quality of group instruction. Researchers and teachers might also need to find ways of improving students’ learning processes, the curriculum and instructional materials, the home environmental support of students’ school learning, and providing a focus on higher-level thinking skills. Nevertheless, Bloom remained convinced that careful attention to the elements of mastery learning would allow educators at all levels to make great strides in their efforts to reduce the variation in student achievement, close achievement gaps, and help all children to learn excellently.

Bibliography:

• Anania, J. (1981). The effects of quality of instruction on the cognitive and affective learning of students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago.
• Anderson, S., Barrett, C., Huston, M., Lay, L., Myr, G., Sexton, D., et al. (1992). A mastery learning experiment (Technical Report). Yale, MI: Yale Public Schools.
• Anderson, S. A. (1994). Synthesis of research on mastery learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 382 567).
• Arredondo, D., & Block, J. (1990). Recognizing the connections between thinking skills and mastery learning. Educational Leadership, 47(5), 4-10.
• Block, J. H. (1983). Learning rates and mastery learning. Outcomes, 2(3), 18-23.
• Block, J. H., Efthim, H. E., & Burns, R. B. (1989). Building effective mastery learning schools. New York: Longman.
• Bloom, B. S. (1968). Learning for mastery. Evaluation Comment, 1(2), 1-12.
• Bloom, B. S. (1971a). Mastery learning. In J. H. Block (Ed.), Mastery learning: Theory and practice (pp. 47-63). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
• Bloom, B. S. (1971b). Individual differences in school achievement: A vanishing point? Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappan International.
• Bloom, B. S. (1976). Human characteristics and school learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Bloom, B. S. (1977). Favorable learning conditions for all. Teacher, 95(3), 22-28.
• Bloom, B. S. (1978). New views of the learner: Implications for instruction and curriculum. Educational Leadership, 35(7), 563-576.
• Bloom, B. S. (1984). The 2 sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Researcher, 13(6), 4-16.
• Bloom, B. S. (1987). A response to Slavin’s mastery learning reconsidered. Review of Educational Research, 57(4), 507-508.
• Bloom, B. S. (1988). Helping all children learn in elementary school and beyond. Principal, 67(4), 12-17.
• Bloom, B. S., Hastings, J. T., & Madaus, G. (1971). Handbook on formative and summative evaluation of student learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Burke, A. J. (1983). Students’ potential for learning contrasted under tutorial and group approaches to instruction. Unpub-lished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago.
• Carroll, J. B. (1963). A model for school learning. Teachers College Record, 64, 723-733.
• Chan, K. S. (1981). The interaction of aptitude with mastery versus non-mastery instruction: Effects on reading comprehension of grade three students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Western Australia.
• Dollard, J., & Miller, N. E. (1950). Personality andpsychotherapy. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Fitzpatrick, K. A. (1985, April). Group-based mastery learning: A Robin Hood approach to instruction? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
• Glaser, R. (1966). The program for individually prescribed instruction. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh.
• Guskey, T. R. (1987). Rethinking mastery learning reconsidered. Review of Educational Research, 57(2), 225-229.
• Guskey, T. R. (1988). Response to Slavin: Who defines best? Educational Leadership, 46(2), 26-27.
• Guskey, T. R. (1997a). Implementing mastery learning (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
• Guskey, T. R. (1997b). Putting it all together: Integrating educational innovations. In S. J. Caldwell (Ed.), Professional
• Development in Learning-Centered Schools (pp. 130-149). Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.
• Guskey, T. R. (2001). Mastery learning. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences (pp. 9372-9377). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Ltd.
• Guskey, T. R., & Pigott, T. D. (1988). Research on group-based mastery learning programs: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Research, 81, 197-216.
• Hiebert, E. H. (1987). The context of instruction and student learning: An examination of Slavin’s assumptions. Review of Educational Research, 57, 337-340.
• Klausmeier, H. J., Rossmiller, R. A., & Saily, M. (1977). Individually guided elementary education: Concepts and practices. New York: Academic Press.
• Kozlovsky, J. D. (1990). Integrating thinking skills and mastery learning in Baltimore County. Educational Leadership, 47(5), 6.
• Kulik, C. C., Kulik, J. A., & Bangert-Drowns, R. L. (1990). Effectiveness of mastery learning programs: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 60, 265-299.
• Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1989). Meta-analysis in education.International Journal of Educational Research, 13(2), 221-340.
• Kulik, J. A., Kulik, C. C., & Bangert-Drowns, R. L. (1990). Is there better evidence on mastery learning? A response to Slavin. Review of Educational Research, 60, 303-307.
• Langeheine, R. (1992, April). State mastery learning: Dynamic models for longitudinal data. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
• Levine, D. U. (1985). Improving student achievement through mastery learning programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Mevarech, Z. R. (1981, April). Attaining mastery on higher cognitive achievement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles.
• Morrison, H. C. (1926). The practice of teaching in the secondary school. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Nakajima, A. (2006). A powerful influence on Japanese education. In T. R. Guskey (Ed.), Benjamin S. Bloom: Portraits of an educator (pp. 109-111). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
• National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author. Retrieved  from https://www.nctm.org/uploadedFiles/Standards_and_Positions/PSSM_ExecutiveSummary.pdf
• Postlethwaite, K., & Haggarty, L. (1998). Towards effective and transferable learning in secondary school: The development of an approach based on mastery learning. British Educational Research Journal, 24(3), 333-353.
• Reezigt, B. J., & Weide, M. G. (1990, April). The effects of group-based mastery learning on language and arithmetic achievement and attitudes in primary education in the Netherlands. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston.
• Slavin, R. E. (1987). Mastery learning reconsidered. Review of Educational Research, 57(2), 175-213.
• Waddington, T. (1995, April). Why mastery matters. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
• Walberg, H. J. (1988). Response to Slavin: What’s the best evidence? Educational Leadership, 46(2), 28.
• Walberg, H. J. (1990). Productive teaching and instruction: Assessing the knowledge base. Phi Delta Kappan, 71, 470-478.
• Washburne, C. W. (1922). Educational measurements as a key to individualizing instruction and promotions. Journal of Educational Research, 5(1), 195-206.
• Whiting, B., & Render, G. F. (1987). Cognitive and affective outcomes of mastery learning: A review of sixteen semesters. The Clearing House, 60(6), 276-280.
• Whiting, B., Van Burgh, J. W., & Render, G. F. (1995). Mastery learning in the classroom. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
• Wu, W. Y. (1994, April). Mastery learning in Hong Kong: Challenges and prospects. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
• Yildiran, G. (2006). Multicultural applications of mastery learning. Istanbul, Turkey: Faculty of Education, Bogazici University.

ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER