mastery learning

1. Mastery Learning: An Effective Teaching Strategy
Vahid Motamedi
Assistant Professor
Department of Educational Technology
Faculty of Psychology & Education
Tarbiat Moallem University
Mofateh Avenue
Tehran, Iran 15614
vmotamedi@tmu.ac.ir
Abstract
Mastery learningis usedin order to advancean individual’s potential for learning. Comparedtotraditional learningmodels, sufficient time, attention, andhelp are
affordedto eachstudent.This paperinvestigates themastery learningmodel andchanges that havetakenplace in its use as an effective teachingstrategy. It also
provides a comparison ofBloom’s andKeller’s approaches as well as a critique of bothapproaches usinghistorical data.This papershows that by applyingmastery
learningas a teachingstrategy, students achieve higher learningandbetteracademicperformance.
Key words: MasteryLearning, Learning, TeachingStrategy, PersonalizedSystemof Instruction
Introduction
Allowingstudents the opportunitytoachievemastery ofcontent at different time intervals has proventobe an effective methodof increasingstudent
learning. This paper will investigate the mastery learningmodel andchanges that have takenplacein its use as an effectiveteachingstrategy.It alsoprovides a
comparison ofBloom’s andKeller’s approaches as well as a critique of both approaches usinghistorical data. By definition, masterylearningis a methodof instruction
where the focus is on therole offeedbackin learning. Furthermore,mastery learningrefers toa categoryof instructional methods which establishes a level of
performance that all students must “master” before movingon tothe next unit (Slavin,1987). Thus, through one or moretrials, students havetoachieve a specified
level of content knowledge priortoprogression ontoa next unit ofinstruction.

2. Background Information
Mastery learningthough strongly influencedby thedevelopment of instructional technology is not, however, a newconcept (Bloom,1976; Wentling, 1973).
Some principles of masterylearningoriginatedwith Aristotleandother ancient Greek philosophers. Furthermore, theconcept that most students can learn everything
that is beingtaught,if given sufficient time, goes back intothe previous century(Block, 1973;Bloom, 1976).
Mastery learningwas first introducedintothe American educational systemover seventy years ago. However,duringthe1920s, onlya fewschools in
America were usingmastery
learning. Washburne (1922) stated, “With thedevelopment of theachievement test movement, we may nowmake units of achievement the constant factor, varyingthe
time to fit the individual capacities of the children.” AccordingtoBlock(1971), in 1922there was an attempt by Washburn andothers toproduce masteryin students'
learning. This planwas known as the Winnetka Plan, in which "primarilyself-instructional practice materials were used, although the teacheroccasionallytutored
individuals or small groups" (p. 4).A furtherattempt was made in 1926by Morrison in which "avariety ofcorrectives were used-- for example, re-teaching, tutoring,
restructuringthe original learningactivities, andredirecting student study habits"(p. 4). Blockstatedthat Morrison's methodwas successful in the 1930s. However,
because of a lack of technology,Morrison's idea of masterylearningfailedtobe usedby teachers across the nation.
In the early 1960s theidea of masterylearningwas revivedin the form ofprogrammedinstruction.Programmedinstructionderivedinitiallyfromwork
conductedby B. F. Skinner was further developedby otherbehaviorists. This program was similar tomastery learningin the sense that the focus was on the roleof
feedback in learningandon individualizedlearning. Also, like theoriginal mastery learningmodel,this methodof instructionallowedstudents tomoveat their own
pace andreceive instant feedbackon their current level of mastery.
Founders of MasteryLearning
Both BloomandCarroll are creditedwith formulatingthe idea of masterylearning, though manyof its elements were strongly influencedby Washburn and
Morrison in the1920s andbehaviorists in the 1960s.As citedin Carroll (1963), Bloom came up with an important component ofinstruction whichis time. InCarroll’s
theorylearningis a functionof time spent dividedby thetime needed(Davis & Sorrell,1995). AccordingtoCarroll, the differences in aptitude amongstudents aredue
to the amount oftime spent in learningthematerial. Carroll (citedin Block & Anderson,1975) defines aptitude as "a measure of learningrate, i.e.as a measure of the
amount of time the student wouldrequire to learn a givenlevel under ideal instructional conditions" (p. 2). Accordingto Davis andSorrell (1995), Carroll indicatedthat
if the student will make theeffort to learn a taskby allowinghimselfor herselfthe time that the student requires for individual learningthenhe or she will succeed.
Therefore, in a giventest, theonlythingthat varies is student performance.
In the late 1960s,Bloom's "Learningfor Mastery"focusedattention onthe philosophyof masterylearning. Bloominterpreted Carroll's ideas andphilosophy
of learningin terms ofmasterylearning. He statedthat the mastery learningproponent believes that intelligence andaptitude are not the best indicators of potential
achievement. Furthermore,Bloom(1976,1979, & 1980)pointedout that “cognitive entry characteristics” (specific knowledge, abilities, andskills),which are
necessary prerequisites to a particular learningtask, arebetterpredictors oflater achievement.These characteristics were seen as identifiable andalterable by Bloom. In
addition, with continual academic success, Bloom felt that “affective entry characteristics” (attitude, self confidence, andmotivation) wouldimprove over time.
Accordingto Bloom “cognitive entrycharacteristics,” “affectiveentrycharacteristics,” andqualityof instructiondetermine therate oflearningforeachindividual.
Bloom alongwith Anderson(1976), Block(1973 & 1979), Guskey andGates (1986), andWalberg(1984) argue that under themastery learningapproach, differences
in learningrates will decrease andcan approach zero.Thus, as students masterthe prerequisite skills for each newunit the needforcorrectiveinstruction will
progressivelyreduce on eachsucceedingunit (Bloom,1976, 1980).

3. Bloom (1968)is known as the individual recognizedforthe theoretical formulationofthe mastery model. His predictionwas that 95% of the students taught
by the mastery approach wouldachieve at a level that hadpreviously been reachedby only5%. He suggestedthat learningoutcomes in most all subject areas canbe
enhancedthrough the masterylearningmethod. Overtime, themodel ofmastery learning, developedby Bloom,began totake ona number ofdifferent variables.
Accordingto Bloom,every masterylearningprogram divides instructioninto small units. Feedback is always a part ofmastery learningwhere students are givenan
opportunity to practice what they havelearnedandare given corrective feedback(Motamedi & Sumrall, 2000).
The idea of "cognitiveobjective"was originatedby Bloom.Masteryis definedin terms ofobjectives. Students will be able to performat least 90% orhigher
on a test. AccordingtoBloom's theory ofmastery learningdiagnosis is required. For example, if a student is havingproblems with his studies, thecause needs tobe
found. Instructionshouldbe supplementedwith correctives such as tutoring, additional practice, small group study, games, or even re-teachingthe material.Thetime is
always allowed to vary.
Traditionally,many teachers believe that intelligence andaptitude have determinedtheindividual’s potential forlearning. Bloom(1974a, 1976, & 1980)
states that all toooften,intelligence andaptitude scores have determinedopportunities for furthereducation,student support andencouragement, andevenqualityof
interaction between teacherandstudent. Hence, students withhigh scores have been the ones towhomthe teachers havedirectedmost oftheir attention.However,in
the masterylearningmodel, Bloomstatedthat teacher-student relationships are greatlyalteredand the potential oflowachievers is increased.
Bloom recognizedthat oneaspect ofmastery learningis learningin sequence, where sequencingis describedas hierarchical. Thus, masteryof eachstep
prior to advancingtothe next step is essential. This concept goes back tothe behaviorists andSkinnerin 1954. The learningof most complexbehavior rests upon
learninga sequence of less complex component behaviors. Ifwe are learningalgebra, for example,an understandingof latermaterial requires a complete understanding
of earlier material. This is relatedtothe sequential nature of masterylearning. A student cannot take the next step until that individual has fully masteredthe previous
material. Slavin andKarweit (1984) refer to Bloom(1976)in his claim that masterylearning"focuses primarilyonstudents' abilities tounderstandinstructionby
attemptingto insurethat all students have masteredthe previous skill before attemptingthe next" (p. 726). Jensen (2006) also supports masterylearningwhereina
student who masters a skill or subject moves on tothe next level of learning. Inthis process slowlearners are not kept backandgiftedstudents wouldperformtotheir
own higher capacities.
Bloom was not without criticism, though feweducators who are familiarwith the masterylearningapproach denythat it can provide some positive effects.
However, theclaim ofmasterylearningtheorists that achievement variabilityandtime variabilitycan be minimizedsimultaneously has createdconsiderable
controversy(Arlin, 1984b).Whereas, Bloom’s 1976bookon masterylearninghas been describedas “possibly themost significant book ofits decade” [Havighurst,
1976 (citedby Arlin, 1984b)], Glass andSmith (1978)suggest that Bloom’s claims aremereeducat ional rhetoric. Others call his claims of vanishingdifferences
“mythological statements” whichdeny reality anda psychological trap” which will entice teachers to attempt unfeasible goals (Arlin, 1984b).
Research Studies about MasteryLearning
Over the years many research studies basedon masterylearninghavebeen conducted. Studies rangingin populationfromelementarythrough university and
in some cases usingeducational technologyhave takenplace.
WhitingandRender (1984) providedresearchfindings tosupport thehypothesis that masterylearningdoes produce successful learningexperiences forat
least 80% of the students in their program.Theirstudy also indicatedverystrongpositive outcomes in theaffectivedomain with strongindications of satisfactionand
pride in the learningaccomplishments alongwith a steadyincrease in enrollment in the classes comprisingthe study. A high level of retentionwas illustratedwith
students motivatedtoremediate unlearnedmaterials eventhough at times theywere not requiredto retake a test. Theauthors made a strongcase forthe use of mastery
learningwhile at thesame time they clearly outlinedsome ofthe difficulties encounteredin the “corporateculture”when such a program is implemented.

4. Guskey andGates (1986) conducteda researchsynthesis of studies of group basedmasterylearningin elementary andsecondary classrooms. Twenty seven
studies were selectedfor the synthesis. Guskey andGates reported“that without exception thestudies showedpositiveeffects on a broadrange ofstudent learning
outcomes, includingstudent achievement,retentionoflearnedmaterial, involvement in learningactivities, andstudent affect.” Thesynthesis revealedthat the
magnitude of theeffect on student achievement variedwidely across studies. Several ofthe studies investigatedvariables relatedtotime. Although Guskey andGates
contendthat student learningrates are alterable as Bloom’s model hypothesizes, their synthesis report does state that “Arlin (1984a,& 1984b) argues that learningrate
is a fairly stable andunalterable characteristic.”
Lai andBiggs (1994) conducteda study with educationally disadvantagedstudents in grade 9 biologyclasses. Students were classifiedinto surface biased
anddeep biased. The results of the study indicatedthat mastery learningbenefitedsurface biasedstudents while the deep biasedstudents’ interest levels tendedto
progressivelydiminish usingmastery learning. Thus deep andsurfacebiasedlearners increasingly diverge in bothperformanceandattitude, where surface learners did
better thandeep learners fromunit tounit.Lai andBiggs statedthat surfacestudents seemedto be motivatedby the success they haveobtained; a success that is a rare
event tothese students.
Ritchie andThorkildsen(1994)usedthe videodisc-basedinstructionmethod“toexamine the factorof accountabilityin masterylearningprograms. The
videodisc-basedinstructionwas chosen to help minimize differences in instructional materials, instructional time,andinstructional delivery.” Results ofthis study
indicateda significant difference in achievement test scores. Two possible reasons for the significant increase amongmasterylearningstudents were such that their
awareness of participating in a mastery learningprogramquiz andtest results will directly influencetheir progressionandre-mediationof ensuinginstructional
material.
Kulik, Jaksa, andKulik (1978) conducteda study which demonstratedthat the highstudent achievement was an outcome ofpersonalizedinstruction. They
notedthat this instruction has at least four sources. Thefirst important factor is PSI's high masterystandard. The second factor is the large numberof unit quizzes. The
thirdis timingof feedbackwhich influences student achievement in PersonalizedSystem ofInstruction(PSI) courses. The final critical factoris the total amount of
reviewbuilt into PSI courses.
Semb (1980)referredto several studies that have comparedKeller's (1968) personalizedsystem ofinstruction to more traditional lecturemethods. The result
of these studies demonstratedthat PSI has producedhigher levels of academic achievement andhigher student ratings. AccordingtoKlishis, Hursh, andKlishis (1980)
PSI has repeatedlybeen shown to be more effective thanthe traditional lecture approach.
Atkisson (citedin Klishis,Hursh, & Klishis,1980) conducteda study with sixth-grade students in a PSI spellingclass. He foundthat these students
completedtheir workearly, givingthemtime to work at buildingtheir vocabularyskills. Klishis, Hursh, andKlishis (1980) demonstratedin an experiment that PSI
results in more effectivelearningof spellingin elementaryclassrooms. Results showedthat students were more successful in masteringcontent andfasterin completing
the course than they were when taught by traditional methods.
They also foundthat attitudinallystudents enjoyedPSI more thanthe conventional approachandenjoyedservingas proctors. Accordingto Kulik, Kulik, and
Carmichael (1974), Kellerreportedthat students ratedthe personalizedcourses as much moreenjoyable than traditionallytaught courses. Theauthors statedthat
students are "highlypleasedwith this way of teachingandlearning"(p.379).Kulik, Kulik, andCarmichael foundthat 72% of students in nuclearengineering, 91% in
electrical engineering, 64% in mechanical engineering, and59% in operations research consideredPSI better than thelecture method. Theypresentedresults of 15
studies in which examination results in Keller andconventionalcourses were compared. Accordingto theauthors of the 15studies, higher performance for theKeller
section was reportedin 11 of them.The authors also statedthat "content learningunder theKeller plan always equals, andmost often exceeds, content learningunder
the lecture method" (p. 383).

5. A Comparison ofBloom’s and Keller’s Approaches
Similarities
One of the similarities is that students are capable of learningwell. It is thetaskof the teacher todesign his instruction. The teachershouldhavea set of
objectives forstudents tofollow. Both strategies assume that the course shouldbe broken intosmallerlearningunits so that there is a betterinteractionbetween students
andthe teacher.Both ofthese approaches take the same positionon individual student performance.Individual student performance shouldbe basedon “absolute
performance” ratherthanon “relative performance”(Block, 1974).
Differences
Bloom andKeller bothagree that each student must master eachpart of the course. But Bloom believes that masteryof the parts is not the sameas mastery
of the whole. He bases a student’s grade primarilyon thestudent’s performance over all units takenas a whole, whereas in Keller’s plan, masteryof the parts ofa
course is the equivalent of masteryof the course takenas a whole. Keller bases the student’s grade mostly onhis performance oneachunit. For Bloom, masteryis
performance at or above a particular level on thecourse final examination,whereas for Keller, masteryis perfect performance ona particularnumber ofunits by a
certain point in time. Bloom’s plantends to use larger learningunits thandoes Keller’s plan. Bloom’s units usually correspondtotwo weeks worthof instruction;
Keller’s units usually correspondtoabout one week worth ofinstruction. In bothstrategies, the teacheris encouragedto sequencehis learningunits; but in Bloom’s
strategy,the teacher attempts tosequence the units hierarchically so that the material in one unit builds on the material fromthe precedingunit.Bloom’s units are taught
using group-basedmethods while Keller’s units are taught usingindividual basedmethods. The Keller strategyasks students tolearnby reading, whereas the Bloom
strategy asks students tolearnby reading, hearinglectures, and/orparticipatingin discussions. InBloom’s strategy, the original instruction is teacher-paced; whereas in
Keller’s approach, it is student orself-paced(Block, 1974).
A Critique ofBoth Approaches
Both masterylearningandPersonalizedSystemof Instruction havebeen criticized. Gage andBerliner (1988)quotedMueller (1976) as assertingthat
mastery learning
(a) takes much ofthe responsibilityfor learningaway fromstudents, who may endup not knowinghow tolearnindependently; (b) requires non-fixed-time
instructional units orgreatly liberalizedtime allocations; (c)makes faster learner "wait around" while slower learner catchup, unless the fasterlearners are
motivatedto spendtheirtime achievingobjectives beyondthe pre-specifiedones; (d) commits a major part of finite instructional resources -- corrective
effort,teacher aides, peertutoring, andalternative learningmaterials -- toslower students and(e) assumes that everythingin an instructionalunit must be
learnedequally well by almost all students, although beyondbasic skills andhierarchical subjects (suchas mathematics) this assumption is hardtodefend(p.
467).
Slavin andKarweit (1984) concludedthat theresults oftheir study “do not support theeffectiveness of the principal component of group-pacedmastery
learning, thecycle offormative test, correctiveinstruction for nonmasters, andsummativetest” (p. 732). AccordingtoSlavin (1987)(citedin Gage & Berliner, 1988)
longer-termexperiments yieldmuch lower estimates ofeffectiveness thando brieferexperiments. Also standardizedachievement tests showless effectiveness for the
approachthando experimenter-made tests.Slavin, with a modifiedview, concludedthat:
The best evidence fromevaluations ofpractical applications ofgroup-basedmasterylearningindicates that effects of those methods are moderate at best on
experimenter-made achievement measures closely tiedtothe objectives taught in the mastery learningclasses andare essentiallynil onstandardized
achievement measures. ... These conclusions are radically different fromthose drawn by earlierreviewers andmeta-analysts.(p. 464)

6. Gage andBerliner (1988)statedthat unless carefully controlledandimplemented, masterylearningoftenhelps slower-learningstudents at the expense of
faster-learningstudents by takingeducational resources such as teacher’s time andattention. Fasterlearners are oftenleft ontheir own with“busy” work.
Most critics do not deny that benefits accrue under the PersonalizedSystemof Instruction orcontinuous-progress types ofmastery programs in which
students moveat their own pace; however,several critics ofgroup basedmasterylearning(Arlin,1984a; Slavin, 1987)have questionedwhethermastery learning
simply shifts learningfromhigh to lowachievers. Theysuggest that masterylearningsacrifices coverage formastery andsince rapidcoverage is likely to be of greatest
benefit to highachievers andhigh masteryis of greatest benefit to lowachievers, pure groupbasedmastery learningwill likely produce a “Robin Hood” effect.
There are several otherreservations about themastery learningapproach. Mueller(1976)sees the masterymodel as placinga ceilingbeyondwhich the faster
learners are not allowedto progress. Muelleralso believes that it is not useful in trainingstudents tolearnindependently. In addition, he states, “the mastery model
equates masterywith high qualityperformance”(p. 14). Mueller thinks that, in additiontowhat a student learns,howlongit tookhim to learn it shouldbe a part of his
grade.
Later studies counteredthese criticisms by questioningthe efficacyofthe individual implementations ofthe mastery learning. Arredondo andBlock(1990)
statedthat “whenwell implementedseparately, both masterylearningandthinkingskills programs appeartoimprove student learning.” Technology is oftenviewedas
a useful tool for the more efficient implementationof some ofthe keyaspects of the masterylearningmodel. BothmasterylearningandPSI trytoensure remedial
instruction ofhigh quality. Alternativetextbooks,workbooks, programmedinstruction,games, andinteractionwith a tutormayhelpa particularstudent to understand
what he is learning(Gage & Berliner, 1988).
Discussion and Conclusion
The hidden agenda that schools carryout does not involve howmuch students learn.The agenda is to divide students basedon their academic achievement.
The schools function ona system that separates the smartest fromthose that are not as academically inclined. That is the structure of theeducational system in the
UnitedStates.
If, for example,forty students were put in a classroom, there wouldbe some students that wouldhave pooracademic skills, while others excelled. These
students are separatedbasedon theiracademic performance.The reasonwhy we have toperformthis functionin education for society is that businesses, lawfirms,
graduate schools, etc. all want to employthe brightest andthe best students. This is the way tocategorize students. This is basedon the functionthat our educational
system performs for us in the UnitedStates. Thus, our educational systemis basedon the notion that allows performance to varyin the classroom.It is acceptable for us
to teachall students the same things, access theirlearning, andsee howstudents differin terms of what theylearn.
In masterylearning, timerather thanperformance, varies. Time is probably the biggest andthemost important element ofmastery learning. What is done in
classrooms nowis the same as what was done onehundredyears ago: uniforminstruction is presentedin the classroom. This is what goes on in 99% ofclassrooms. The
same instructionis presentedto a numberof students. What is measured? Achievement is measuredin terms of howmuch informationstudents are able tomaster.A
bell curve is foundto tell what most are learning, which is about 70% of the objective.
Obviously students are different. Some have higher aptitude than others in the classroom. Therefore, forall students toreacha high standardof performance
it will take some students longerthanit will take others. Thus, with masterylearning, the longer periodof time requiredforsome students tolearn hinders themfrom
reachingthedesiredachievement level. Anadvantage of masterylearningis that more students achieve higher learning. Also, students wouldhave prerequisiteskills to
move to thenext units, objectives wouldbe stated, andbetter academic performancewouldresult for somestudents. Anobvious disadvantage of masterylearningis

7. that the less capable students who do not achieve the criterion as quickly takelongertomasterthe material.Also, individualizedinstruction, a varietyof material forre-
teaching, andseveral tests for each unit maybe required. The mainweakness of mastery learningis the timefactor.
Mastery learningis an alternative methodof teachingandlearningfor manystudents who do not respondwell to traditional instruction.Traditional
instruction has not been successful formany students in schools, colleges, anduniversities. Like themasterylearningtheory,cooperative learningis a strategy that
looks unfavorablyon competitionamongindividual students when learningthe subject matter.In addition, it is a strategylike masterylearningthat makes thestudents
responsible for their learningthesubject. Cooperative learningis consideredby many educators tobe the most viable means by which all students can learnthe subject
matter(Motamedi & Sumrall, 2000). Constructivism,on theother hand, has been describedas theunifyingtheoryof education that has succeededin tyingtogether all
learningtheories in all academic areas. Constructivists use a type of learningwhere students are allowed"concrete, contextuallymeaningful experience through which
they can search for patterns, raise their own questions, andconstruct their own models, concepts, andstrategies"(Fosnot, 1996, p.ix). AccordingtoFosnot, the
classroom in this model is viewedas sharingactivities,discourse, andreflection.The teacheris moreof a facilitator ratherthantraditional controller ofthe classroom.
Unlike cooperativelearning, theliterature does not provide a positivetie between constructivismandmasterylearning.
From the researchdiscussedabove, it is evident that masterylearningis an effective methodofinstruction whichenhances student learning, achievement,
attitude, andexpectations.There is also evidence that students enjoythis methodof learningandindividuallycan reachsuccess. Students preferthe Kellerplanto
traditional teachingmethods. Mastery teachingandlearningis a very simplisticway of teachingandlearningin the sense that the instructors assume all students can
learn the same material. The only difference amongstudents is the amount of timeneededtolearnthe material.Withsuch positive results shown by research studies on
mastery learning, it becomes clearthat masterylearningtechniques needtobe morewidely implementedin Americanclassrooms thantheycurrentlyare.
References
Arredondo, D.E. & Block, J. H.(1990). Recognizing theconnections betweenthinking skills and mastery learning. EducationalLeadership,47(5), 4-10.
Arlin, M. (1984a). Time, equality, andmastery learning. Review ofEducationalResearch, 54,65-86.
Arlin, M. (1984b). Timevariability inmastery learning. AmericanEducational ResearchJournal, 21, 103-120.
Block, J. H. (ed.) (1971). Mastery learning: Theory andpractice. New York: Holt, Rinehat and Winston.
Block, J. H. (1973). Teachers teaching and mastery learning. Today’s Education, 62, 30-37.
Block, J. H. (ed.) (1974). Schools, society,andmastery learning.New York:Holt, Rinehartand Winston.
Block, J. H. (1979). Mastery learning — Current stateofthecraft. EducationalLeadership, 37, 114-117.
Block, J. H. & Anderson, L.W. (1975). Masterylearningin classroominstruction.New York: Macmillon.
Bloom, B. (1968). Learning for mastery. Evaluation Comment, 1(2), 1-5.
Bloom, B. S. (1974a). Implications oftheIEAstudies for curriculumand instruction. School Review,82,413-435.
Bloom, B. S. (1974b).Timeand learning.AmericanPsychologist, 29, 682-688.
Bloom, B. S. (1976). Human characteristics and school learning,NewYork: McGraw-Hill.
Bloom, B. S. (1979). Aconversation with Benjamin Bloom. Interview by Ron Brandt. EducationalLeadership, 39, 157-161.
Bloom, B. S. (1980). Thenewdirection in educationalresearch: Alterablevariables. PhiDelta Kappan, 62, 382-385.
Carroll,J. B. (1963). Amodel ofschoollearning. Teachers College Record,64(8), 723-733.
Carroll,J. B. (1971). Problems ofmeasurement relatedto theconcept oflearning for mastery.J. H. Block (ed.) Mastery Learning: Theory andPractice, New York: Holt,
Rinehartand Winston.

8. Davis, D.& Sorrell,J. (1995). Masterylearningin publicschools. Valdosta State University.
Fosnot, C. T. (1996).Constructivism: Apsychologicaltheoryoflearning. In C. T. Fosnot (ed.), Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, andpractice (pp. 8-33).NewYork:
Teachers Collegepress.
Gage, N. L. & Berliner, D. C.(1988). EducationalPsychology (4th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Glass,G. V. & Smith, M. L. (1978). The technology and politics ofstandards. Educational Technology,18, 12-18.
Guskey, T. R. (1990). CooperativeMastery Learning Strategies. The Elementary School Journal, 91(1), 33-42.
Guskey, T. & Gates, S. (1986). Synthesis ofresearch on the effects ofmastery learning in elementary andsecondaryclassrooms. EducationalLeadership,
43(8), 73-80.
Jensen, E. (2006). Enrichingthe Brain: How to Maximize Every Learner’s Potential. San
Francisco,California: Jossey-Bass.
Keller,F. S. (1981). PSIand educationalreform. JournalofCollege Science Teaching, 11(1), 37-38.
Klishis, M. J.; Hursh, D. E. & Klishis, L. A. (1980). Individualizedspelling: An applicationandevaluationofPSI in theelementary school. Journal ofPersonalized
Instruction, 4(3), 152-156.
Kulik, J. A.; Kulik, C.L. & Carmichael, K.(1974). TheKellerplanin scienceteaching. Science, 183, 379-383.
Kulik, J. A.; Jaksa, P. & Kulik, C.C. (1978).Researchon componentfeatures ofKeller's personalizedsystemofinstruction.JournalofPersonalizedInstruction, 3(1),
2-14.
Kulik, C. C.; Kulik, J.A. & Bangert-Drowns, R .L.(1990). Effectiveness ofmastery learning programs: Ameta-analysis.Review ofEducationalResearch, 60(2),
265-299.
Lai, P. & Biggs, J. (1994) Who Benefits fromMasteryLearning? Contemporary EducationalPsychology,19,13-23.
Montazemi,A. R. & Wang,F. (1995). An empiricalinvestigation ofCBIin supportofmastery learning. JournalofEducationalComputing Research,13(2), 185-205.
Motamedi, V. & Sumrall,W. J.(2000). Mastery learning andcontemporaryissues ineducation. Action inTeacher Education,22(1), 32-42.
Mueller, D.J. (1976). Mastery learning: Partlyboon, partly boondoggle. Teachers College Record,78,41-52.
Ritchie,D. & Thorkildsen, R. (1994). Effects ofaccountabilityon students’ achievementin mastery learning. JournalofEducationalResearch,88(2), 86-90.
Robinson, M. (1992). Mastery learning in public schools: Someareas ofrestructuring. Education, 113(1), 121-126.
Ross, L. L. & McBean,D. (1995). Acomparisonofpacing contingencies in classes using a personalizedsystemofinstruction.JournalofApplied BehaviorAnalysis,
28(1), 87-88.
Slavin, R. E. (1987).Mastery learning reconsidered. Review ofEducationalResearch, 57, 175-213.
Slavin, R. E. (1990).Mastery learning re-reconsidered. Review ofEducational Research, 60(2), 300-302.
Slavin, R. E. & Karweit,N. L. (1984). Masterylearning and student teams: Afactorial experiment in urban general Mathematics classes. American Educational
Research Journal, 21(4), 725-736.
Semb, G. (1980). PSI versus contingency-managedlecturein student-selectedand randomly assignedsections ofthesamecourse. JournalofPersonalized
Instruction, 4(3), 129-135.
Walberg,H. J. (1984). Improving theproductivity ofAmerica’s schools. EducationalLeadership, 41, 19-27.
Washburne, C. W.(1922). Educational measurements as a key toindividualizing instruction and promotions. JournalofEducational Research, 5, 195-206.
Wentling, T. L. (1973). Mastery versus non-mastery instruction with varying test item feedback treatments. JournalofEducational Psychology, 65, 50-58.
Whiting, B. &Render, G. F. (1984). Cognitiveand affective outcomes ofmastery learning: Areview of16semesters. Apaper presented at the Annual Meeting ofthe
Northern Rocky MountainEducation Research Association,Jackson, Wyoming,October1984.