Search

This quasi-experiment was designed to assess Robert Slavin's challenge to research on the effects of mastery learning on student achievement in algebra. Focus was on determining if there would be a difference in mathematics achievement between an experimental group (EG) of students whose initial cognitive entry skills were enhanced and who were subsequently taught under mastery learning conditions and a control group (CG) of similar students who were taught by conventional instruction. Applying stringent criteria for internal and external validity, Slavin's literature analysis using the technique of best evidence synthesis found only moderately positive effects of mastery learning on experimenter-made tests and virtually no evidence to support the effectiveness of mastery learning on standardized tests. In the present study, there were two EG classes (morning and afternoon) of ninth grade algebra I students (n=46) and two CG classes (morning and afternoon) of ninth graders (n=40). The subject groups were equivalent in mathematics achievement at the beginning of the experiment. All groups were administered the Orleans-Hanna Algebra Prognosis Test during the first few days of the experiment. The prerequisite mathematics skills of the EG students were remediated during the first week of the experiment. The EGs were taught for 18 weeks under mastery learning conditions. The CGs received traditional instruction for 18 weeks. During the final week of the experiment, all groups were given a teacher-made test and a standardized, norm-referenced test--the Step III Algebra End-of-Course Test. Teacher-made test results support Slavin's conclusions, while standardized test results indicate differences that exceed the range of effect sizes reported by Slavin. Results also show that more time was required in the morning class to remediate deficiencies in prescribed skills, and more time was available for enrichment activities in the afternoon classes. (TJH)