Mastery learning is a great approach, and it's important to ensure that formative assessment is mastery-oriented. Many instructors have been using publisher online or LMS quizzing for years now to achieve this. However, some observations and studies tend to overlook an important aspect when it comes to effective implementation - providing proper training to instructors. When instructors are given training on how to create a common syllabus and textbook and how to set up a final exam that is inclusive of all students, things tend to go smoothly.
I recall the example of a psychology class that had started using publisher quizzes and adopted a flipped classroom model. They made a common syllabus, met regularly, and had a common textbook. The passing rates increased noticeably, and all credit was given to the flipped class. Similarly, a seminal study on a pharmacy flipped classroom reduced the syllabus by 50%, and again, credit was given to the flipped class.
Through my own research, I have seen that a flipped classroom environment improves teamwork skills and the classroom experience. However, the final exam and concept inventory improved only by a small effect size when compared to a blended classroom that had the same resources available to both groups. Although the effect size would have been more significant compared to a traditional lecture class, it is still better to start with a blended course with common resources and instructor training than a flipped classroom, as it tends to have more buy-in from instructors and students.
Hi Autar, I'm a bit confused by your comment. It sounds like you're focusing on the flipped model, but that isn't the point of this post -- this is focused on the assessments. Likewise, "mastery learning" is somewhat different from "mastery testing". The second one is what's happening here.
Just wanted the reader to know that the flipped model is not the essential ingredient here. It was mentioned in the post.
Yes, I should have said: "mastery testing". Here also we have to be careful that it is not the same questions being asked over and over again.
I tried "mastery testing" last semester, and the results were positive, but making those new retests, being equitable, and grading them was a monster. I will write a blog about it after the paper is reviewed.
The final exam should be the true measure of cognitive learning, not the passing rate.
I'm not sure what you mean by "passing rate" in your last sentence -- could you expand on that?
I don't think that I agree with the assertion that the final exam should be the true measure of learning. I would agree with something more general, like "what students have learned by the end of the semester is what should count". But a final exam -- at least a traditional one -- is a high stakes, high stress assessment. That means that it usually does a poor job of determining what a student has learned, due to the setting.
The passing rate is "C or higher transcript grade". Passing rates depend heavily on grading categories. If mastery testing is used, and the highest score is used, surely, the passing rates will increase.
The final exam is a better measure of overall "cognitive learning" rather than unit tests or tests of standards. Final exams should be done properly though when there are thousands of students - common final exam and every instructor submits a question on a randomly selected topic and it is approved by a majority to be included.
Anyone who is not giving a comprehensive final exam to students in core classes is losing an opportunity to test for the synthesis of knowledge (assessment of and for learning) and long-term retention (assessment for learning). This is critical if the course is a prerequisite to other courses. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00221309.2013.797379
Yes, synthesis can be tested as a standard, but that takes even more class time and is limited in its implementation of the whole course. The transcript grade depends on weights for each category, etc. If changed, one is comparing apples and oranges,
Mastery learning is a great approach, and it's important to ensure that formative assessment is mastery-oriented. Many instructors have been using publisher online or LMS quizzing for years now to achieve this. However, some observations and studies tend to overlook an important aspect when it comes to effective implementation - providing proper training to instructors. When instructors are given training on how to create a common syllabus and textbook and how to set up a final exam that is inclusive of all students, things tend to go smoothly.
I recall the example of a psychology class that had started using publisher quizzes and adopted a flipped classroom model. They made a common syllabus, met regularly, and had a common textbook. The passing rates increased noticeably, and all credit was given to the flipped class. Similarly, a seminal study on a pharmacy flipped classroom reduced the syllabus by 50%, and again, credit was given to the flipped class.
Through my own research, I have seen that a flipped classroom environment improves teamwork skills and the classroom experience. However, the final exam and concept inventory improved only by a small effect size when compared to a blended classroom that had the same resources available to both groups. Although the effect size would have been more significant compared to a traditional lecture class, it is still better to start with a blended course with common resources and instructor training than a flipped classroom, as it tends to have more buy-in from instructors and students.
Hi Autar, I'm a bit confused by your comment. It sounds like you're focusing on the flipped model, but that isn't the point of this post -- this is focused on the assessments. Likewise, "mastery learning" is somewhat different from "mastery testing". The second one is what's happening here.
Just wanted the reader to know that the flipped model is not the essential ingredient here. It was mentioned in the post.
Yes, I should have said: "mastery testing". Here also we have to be careful that it is not the same questions being asked over and over again.
I tried "mastery testing" last semester, and the results were positive, but making those new retests, being equitable, and grading them was a monster. I will write a blog about it after the paper is reviewed.
The final exam should be the true measure of cognitive learning, not the passing rate.
I'm not sure what you mean by "passing rate" in your last sentence -- could you expand on that?
I don't think that I agree with the assertion that the final exam should be the true measure of learning. I would agree with something more general, like "what students have learned by the end of the semester is what should count". But a final exam -- at least a traditional one -- is a high stakes, high stress assessment. That means that it usually does a poor job of determining what a student has learned, due to the setting.
The passing rate is "C or higher transcript grade". Passing rates depend heavily on grading categories. If mastery testing is used, and the highest score is used, surely, the passing rates will increase.
The final exam is a better measure of overall "cognitive learning" rather than unit tests or tests of standards. Final exams should be done properly though when there are thousands of students - common final exam and every instructor submits a question on a randomly selected topic and it is approved by a majority to be included.
Anyone who is not giving a comprehensive final exam to students in core classes is losing an opportunity to test for the synthesis of knowledge (assessment of and for learning) and long-term retention (assessment for learning). This is critical if the course is a prerequisite to other courses. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00221309.2013.797379
Yes, synthesis can be tested as a standard, but that takes even more class time and is limited in its implementation of the whole course. The transcript grade depends on weights for each category, etc. If changed, one is comparing apples and oranges,