Mastery learning sections show higher earned credit rates than comparable non-mastery sections at the City Colleges of Chicago¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · associational r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 1983 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Evidence quality · No study behind this claim is a peer-reviewed article with a DOI: it rests on an ERIC document (a report, conference paper or thesis). It is kept because 2 design pages cite it; treat it as a lead to check, not an established finding.

Subclaims¶

q2 i? In eight of nine course-level comparisons, mastery learning sections had higher earned credit rates than comparable non-mastery learning sections. → Bonczar 1983 q2 i? Students taking two mastery learning classes had an overall ECR of 66% versus 64% for students taking no mastery learning classes, while students taking one mastery learning class had a lower ECR of 59%, a pattern the authors attribute to course-selection effects. → Bonczar 1983 (2)

Evidence¶

Bonczar 1983¶

Bonczar, Thomas P., & Easton, John Q. (1983). The Effect of Mastery Learning on Student Achievement. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED238505

q2 · i? · associational · r1

Retrospective observational analysis of institutional records from the City Colleges of Chicago's computer-based student recordkeeping system, comparing earned credit rates of full-time Fall 1981 students in mastery versus non-mastery sections of the same courses. The report states that "in eight of nine comparisons, mastery learning sections had higher ECR's than comparable non-mastery learning sections." No effect size is printed.

"in eight of nine comparisons, mastery learning sections had higher ECR's than comparable non-mastery learning sections"

Bonczar 1983 (2)¶

Bonczar, Thomas P., & Easton, John Q. (1983). The Effect of Mastery Learning on Student Achievement. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED238505

q2 · i? · associational · r1

Observational comparison of earned credit rates grouped by number of mastery learning classes taken. The report prints "an overall ECR of 64%" for no ML classes, 59% for one, and 66% for two. The authors argue course-selection effects explain the one-class anomaly and that controlling for course would favor ML sections.

"students who took no mastery learning classes had an overall ECR of 64%, while the ECR of those taking one mastery learning class was 59% and that of students taking two mastery learning classes was 66%"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Mastery Learning Improves Outcomes — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
• In one synthesis of group-based mastery learning, five observational studies found more time-on-task in mastery classes and one community-college evaluation found lower attrition in seven of eight disciplines — related
• In an AI-permitted course with research-shaped homework, most students remained engaged throughout, with 33 of 42 earning credit on at least eight of ten sheets — related
• Self-paced mastery programs (PSI) reduce college course completion, though not by enough to explain their examination advantage — reports the opposite