You are on page 1of 6

T H E APPLICATION O F A MODIFIED MASTERY APPROACH

TO T H E TEACHING O F GRADUATE EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY


A N N E F. TERRILL, VINCENT BERGER AND NORMAN W. MULGRAVE

University of Pittsburgh

Only within the past 6 t o 8 years has higher education begun to break with
the classical-humanist approach t o curriculum design. Inff exible course scheduling,
in which the student must fit the curriculum in order to pass successfully through
it, has given way to a new trend to individualize the learning environment. It is
within this framework that the concept of mastery fits as an appropriate tool for
performance assessment. At the very least ((mastery has revived the old notion
of absolute grading, and at the very most it has revolutionized such procedures as
item and test construction and has spawned the birth of an adaptive mode of
education (Glaser, 1972, p. 5). I n order better to understand mastery in its
current usage, it is necessary to discuss traditional methods of performance evaluation. Subsequently, the concept of mastery is examined and its application to
a n Educational Psychology course at the University of Pittsburgh is carefully
detailed.
Traditionally, relative grading (grading on the curve) and absolute grading
(percent correct) have been the two most popular methods of evaluation. The
underlying assumption of both was that all students cannot learn the material
equally well; few will do poorly, the majority will fall in the middle range, and few
will score well. In a (relative system of grading, the purpose of testing is t o compare students performance. The interpretation of an individual score depends on
the relation of the score to the scores of the rest of the class. For that reason, a
test that uses relative grading has been called a norm-referenced test. (That is,
scores derive meaning by comparison t o the norm).
One of the aims of test construction in the relative grading system is t o
select items that have medium difficulty and good item discrimination; thus by
their very design the items would spread out the distribution to maximize differences among students. If the resulting distribution of test scores approximated
normality, the test designer could feel confident that his aims were met and he
could compare (statistically a t least) students to each other. However, the grades
determined from these scores based on norm-referenced tests frequently are difficult
t o interpret. An A is interpreted t o mean that a student is among the best in
the class, or a t least that he has done superior work in a given semester of a given
year, as judged by a given test instrument. Most instructors are aware t h a t classes
vary in their achievement levels, so that it is possible that this years (B was
last years A. More importantly, the students specific knowledge and competencies in the course material remain unknown. This problem is compounded
a t the graduate level, where the majority of grades are As and Bs.
I n absolute grading, the purpose of testing was t o compare performance t o
preestablished criteria. Frequently, tests were constructed without reference t o
course objectives or without the construction of a table of specifications for the
test. Interpretation of grades was unclear. Grades were based on the percentage
of correct items on a test in which the items were not necessarily representative

254

ANNE F. TERRILL, VINCENT BERGER AND NORMAN W. MULGRAVE

of the specific course content. Unless the test reflected accurately the domain of
behavior to be tested, again one would have no specific knowledge of the students
competence in the course material.

THECONCEPT
OF MASTERY
AND A MODELFOR ITSAPPLICATION
It was against this backdrop of test statistics and ambiguity of interpretation
that the concept of mastery emerged. As described by Bloom (1970), mastery
specifies the minimal level of acceptability that a student must attain in a course
of study. It specifies a cut-off point above which the student is considered competent, a master of the material, and below which the student is not considered
competent. There are two basic assumptions of the concept of mastery. One is
that all students in the class can achieve mastery. Bloom (1970) said that our
basic task is to determine what we mean by mastery of the subject and to search
for the methods and materials which will enable the largest proportion of our
students to attain such mastery . . . [p. 431. The second basic assumption of
mastery is that individuals may differ in the rate at which they achieve mastery
(Carroll, 1963).
The purpose of a test based on mastery is to measure how much and what
specific aspects of the material the student knows. The students score is compared
to a predetermined standard or criterion. For that reason, this type of test has
been called criterion-referenced. Important to the concept of mastery is that
tests be administered frequently t o diagnose the students strengths and weaknesses.
Diagnostic testing throughout a course, formative evaluation, discussed by
Scriven (1667), has two major functions. One is that it informs the student of his
achievement and indicates areas of competence as well as areas that require further
study. Thus, the student is encouraged to use his study time more efficiently.
The second, and more crucial function for adaptive education, is that it aids the
instructor to prescribe new instruction as well as t o evaluate his past instruction.
In this sense the curriculum adapts to the student.
Glasers basic teaching model (Glaser & Nitko, 1971) offers a framework
within which .to implement the concept of mastery. This model has four interconnected components, each of which is discussed briefly below:
1. Instructional objectives
2. Entering behavior
3. Instructional procedures
4. Performance assessment
The first step is the writing of explicit instructional objectives (see Mager, 1962).
The instructor analyzes the tasks that he expects students to learn into their component parts. He lists, hierarchically, all of the behaviors that he expects students
to perform by the end of instruction. A detailed discussion of component task
analysis can be found in Glaser and Nitko (1971). The second phase of the teaching
model is initial placement testing. The students knowledge of the material and
related prerequisites is assessed when he enters the course. The results of this
test of entering behavior may lead the instructor to modify his course objectives
and methods of instruction.

THE APPLICATION OF A MODIFIED MASTERY APPROACH

255

On the basis of the specified objectives and the students initial placement
measures, the instructor selects appropriate instructional procedures. The selection
of varied instructional procedures such as programmed learning, multi-media
approaches, group discussion, lecturing and many others, is step three of the teaching model. It should be emphasized that, ideally, instructional procedures may
vary a t any time with the type of substantive material or objective that is being
taught.
The fourth part of the model is performance assessment in its broadest sense.
This includes assessment throughout the course for the purposes of formative
evaluation as well as assessment a t the end of the course to evaluate both the total
instruction (summative evaluation, Scriven, 1967) and student achievement.
When the instructor constructs a test he selects items that specifically measure
the objectives. The items are not selected because of their discriminating power
or item difficulty, but because of their content validity in relation to the objectives.
The outcome of instruction as described above should not yield a normal
curve, but a negatively skewed distribution. As Bloom (1970) said, (education is
a purposeful activity . . . [p. 451 and the normal curve is the distribution most
appropriate to random activity . . [p. 451.
Interpretation of scores is unambiguous. The instructor can specify the behaviors that the student has mastered and those he has not. This information is
especially useful to future instructors and to prospective employers. Further, the
same criterion of mastery can be applied meaningfully to different classes in different years.

APPLYING
THE CONCEPT
OF MASTERY
TO TEACHING
EDUCATIONAL
PSYCHOLOGY

A modification of the concept of mastery has been used for 2 years in the
Educational Psychology department. Approximately 300 students are enrolled
each trimester in Educational Psychology 201, which is required for all graduate
students in Education. The sections are large (80-110) and heterogeneous. Approximately one-third of the students are in elementary education, one-third in secondary education, and one-third distributed in such fields as health, business, speech
and higher education. Three-fourths of the students are working toward a masters
degree and one-fourth toward the Ph.D. They differ widely in their background
in psychology. The size and the heterogeneity of the classes served as important
motivating factors that led to the development of a different approach to teaching
the course.
Instructional Objectives
On the first day of the course the students are given extensive study guides
thab indicate what the instructors consider the most important instructional objectives t o be learned in the course. These objectives are grouped into 11 categories
that correspond to lecture-discussion topics. The students also are given a schedule
of class discussion topics and exams. They are instructed to use the appropriate
category of study guide instructional objectives when they prepare for class disThese procedures are unique at the University of Pittsburgh; to our knowledge we are the
only department to have utilibed the approach.

256

ANNE F. TERRILL, VINCENT BERGER AND NORMAN W. MULGRAVE

cussions, when they read the text, and when they are reviewing and studying for
exams. The students are informed that all examination items are based on these
objectives.
It should be emphasized that the students are given the objectives at the
beginning of the course, with the understanding that instruction will be based on
the objectives. The student is informed of the minimum level of acceptability and
the methods by which he will be evaluated. No longer does the student have to
guess what the teacher expects him to learn and hope that he has done so successfully. Guessing and hoping are reduced to a minimum. With the anxiety and
ambiguity of the traditional classroom reduced, both student and instructor can
concentrate on fulfilling the contract proposed in the objectives.

Initial Placement Testing


On the first day of class the students are given a multiple-choice test of entering
behavior. This test is based on prerequisite material and on the substantive matter
of the course. It is scored immediately and the results given to the student. I n
addition to feedback concerning the total number of correct and incorrect responses, each student is given a profile of his subscores on each of the study guides
11 topic areas. Thus, the student can be somewhat selective in his future studying
and can concentrate on those areas in which he was initially weak.
Approximately 12 t o 18% of the students score sufficiently high on the test
to exempt the course. Mastery is defined as ?5y0of the items correct and entitles
the student to receive an A without additional work. Scores between 60 and
74y0entitle the student to exempt the course and receive a B. (The same criteria
are used for the examinations given throughout the course.) A third option is
Advanced Standing for the course. After an advanced standing fee is paid, tuition
is refunded, and three advanced standing credits are noted on the transcript. This
indicates that the student has fulfilled the course requirements by examination.
Exemption by test is one means to fulfill the course requirements. It allows
those students whose entering behavior sufficiently approximates the terminal
behavior required in the course the flexibility of taking higher-level courses and
accelerating through their program of study.
The remaining students benefit from the diagnostic feedback of the placement
test and continue to participate in the varied instructional procedures and frequent
evaluations. It should be noted that the placement test scores are not used in any
way for the determination of grades of these remaining students.
Instructional Procedures
The procedures in the course vary with the subject matter and the objectives
that are being taught. Some topics are taught by lecture, others by both large and
small group discussion. The students are given exercises that involve problemsolving and application of the course material. Eight films as well as other audiovisual materials and class exercises are used during the trimester t o clarify the
objectives. The students have first-hand experience with problem-solving tasks,
concept formation and verbal learning materials, and testing instruments that
measure such variables as intelligence and creativity.

THE APPLICATION OF A MODIFIED MASTERY APPROACH

257

Performance Assessment
Students have two opportunities to master the material of the first half of the
course and two chances on the material of the second half. Mastery again is defined
as 75y0of the items correct and entitles the student to an A on the test. A score
of 60% correct represents a B on the test.
The early-midterm and midterm are parallel or equivalent test forms that
cover the same instructional objectives. The early-midterm is given approximately
one-fourth of the way through the course, and the midterm is given at the halfway point. If the student achieves mastery on the early midterm he can accept
that score or can try to improve his score on the midterm exam. While students
are encouraged to take both exams, only their higher score is counted.
The early final and final are parallel or equivalent test forms that cover the
remaining half of the instructional objectives detailed in the study guides. The
early final is given three-quarters of the way through the term and the final at the
end of the term. Students who achieve mastery on the early final can accept that
score or can try to improve their score on the final exam. The highest score contributes to the grade.
As is the case with the initial placement test, all exams are scored immediately
and the results given to the student. The student is informed of his correct and
incorrect responses. I n addition, the student receives detailed information as to
which course objectives he has mastered and which require further study.
The students final grade is computed by combining the higher of each pair of
test scores. A total of 75y0of the items correct equals an A; 60% correct equals a B.
This multiple testing procedure has four purposes. First, the early midterm
and early final can serve as diagnostic tools for the student. If the student does
not reach mastery at the first testing, he knows which material was missed and
requires further study for the second testing. Second, the multiple testings allow
some students to accelerate through the course. A student who achieves mastery
on the early midterm and on the early final can complete the course several weeks
before the terms end. Third, the testings allow the instructor to monitor student
achievement and to revise objectives and procedures if necessary. Fourth, the
testing procedure attempts to deal with the notion, prominent in Carrolls (1963)
theory, that the rate of learning varies with different individuals. In addition to
acceleration through the course, consideration is given to those students who may
benefit from extension of the trimester. Students who are judged to fall far below
the mastery cutoff are encouraged to take an incomplete and join the next
trimesters class.

RELATIONSHIP
TO COMPETENCY BASED
TEACHER
EDUCATION
AND CERTIFICATION
PROGRAMS
Today one hears about the need for both competency based teacher education and certification programs as well as the desire for multiple options or paths
to meet these competencies. The competency concept refers to education and
certification as dependent not on the educational equivalent of phony baloney,
ie., the assembling of a certain number of slices called credits, but rather on a
demonstration of competencies that faculties and others agree are requisite to good

258

ANNE F. TERRILL, VINCENT BERGER AND NORMAN W. MULGRAVE

teaching practice. A system such as the one herein described identifies the competencies for a required course and makes available several methods to achieve
these competencies.
By defining the competencies before the course begins the instructors also are
making certain that the essentials of those competencies are taught within the
several classes. Each class is, therefore, not simply a reflection of the interests of a
particular faculty member, but a reflection of the consensus of those charged with
designing and teaching the course within the framework of the total school curriculum.
EVALUATION
Informal student evaluations were conducted at the end of the first class that
operated under the modified mastery system. Students simply were asked to relate
their feelings about this procedure. Most stated that they really didnt believe
the conditions. It was only after the early midterm that they were convinced.
Others said they felt a t first that they were grubbing for a grade, but at the end
of the course stated that they had learned a great deal-more than with the usual
course structure.
Some said, Its great-now I can go on vacation 3 weeks early. Whatever
the evaluation offered, in no case did any student make a strong preference for
other procedures.
Plans are underway for a systematic evaluation of this modified mastery
procedure in terms of a detailed analysis of student attitudes and new study techniques. The effects of this course structure also will be evaluated in terms of student
performance on the Masters Comprehensive Exam. This exam, required of all
Masters Candidates in the University of Pittsburgh School of Education, measures
achievement in the Foundations of Education, of which Educational Psychology
is a major part.
In addition, the authors recognize that in order to apply the mastery approach
without modification, means will have t o be found to extend the course beyond
one term for those students who do not achieve mastery within the time limits
normally imposed by the university bookkeeping systems. Efforts also will be
expended in this direction.
Department of Educational Psychology
617 Cathedral of Learning
University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, Pa. 15213

REFERENCES
BLOOM,B. S. Learning for mastery. In J. T. Hastings and G. F. Madam (Eds.), Formative and
summative evaluation of student learning. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970.
CARROLL,
J. B. A model of school learning. Teachers College Record, 1963, 64, 723-733.
GLASER,R. Individuals and learning: the new aptitudes. Presidential address presented a t the
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, April 1972.
GLASWR,
R., & NITICO,A. J. Measurement in learning and instruction. I n R. L. Thorndike (Ed.),
Educational measurement. Washington : American Council on Education, 1971.
MAQER,R. F. Preparing instructional objectives. San Francisco: Fearon, 1962.
SCRIVEN,
R4. The methodology of evaluation. I n R. Stake (Ed.), Perspectives of curriculum evaluation. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1967.

You might also like