A Systematic Literature Review for Mastery Learning in Undergraduate Engineering Courses

International Journal of Engineering Education

Access to Full Article here

Authors: Carlos L. Pérez and Dina Verdín

Abstract

Implementing mastery learning in an undergraduate engineering course can be cumbersome, requiring instructors to restructure their evaluation and grading practices significantly. There is a lack of coherent evidence on the effects of mastery learning on undergraduate engineering students and a lack of understanding of instructors’ perspectives on mastery learning. Therefore, the four objectives of this study were 1) to provide educators and researchers with an overview of how mastery learning has been applied in undergraduate engineering courses, 2) to understand the effect mastery learning has had on students’ learning, 3) to understand students’ experiences, and 4) document reflective feedback reported by instructors who implemented mastery learning.

We employed a systematic literature review methodology to address these objectives. We surveyed eight databases for published articles. Our systematic literature review focused on studies that applied mastery learning in undergraduate engineering courses in the United States; 23 articles were reviewed and synthesized. Mastery learning was implemented through many approaches, but all implementations followed the core features of specifying learning objectives, using designated evaluation metrics to measure mastery, and providing multiple retake opportunities. The most common implementations were in Statics, Dynamics, and Thermodynamics courses. Students’ final exam grades were not representative of the effectiveness of mastery learning. Yet, there was evidence that mastery learning positively affected student learning when cumulative course grades or homework grades were considered. Students’ evaluation of their mastery learning experience was mixed. Five studies reported that many students learned better through mastery learning. A robust evaluation of students’ experience in a mastery learning course could be ascertained better through standard survey questionnaires. After analyzing the instructor’s reflective feedback, we identified 16 benefits and four limitations.

We conclude the systematic review by providing recommendations for instructors considering implementing mastery learning in their undergraduate engineering courses.

Why was this Systematic Review Needed ?

Implementing new assessment strategies can be a daunting task for engineering educators. Often those seeking different strategies are unsure how to apply the approach or if students will react favorably to the new approach. The lack of coherent evidence of the effectiveness of different assessment strategies can also dissuade engineering educators. Many articles have been published implementing mastery learning in undergraduate engineering courses; however, their implementations or approaches vary. The variability in determining how mastery is evaluated can confuse educators seeking to apply a mastery learning approach to their course. Moreover, educators seeking to spend significant time and effort restructuring their course to focus on mastery learning may be hesitant due to an insufficient understanding of the efficacy of the pedagogy. Therefore, this systematic review was meant to provide educators with an overview of how different engineering instructors have applied mastery learning to their undergraduate courses and how this approach has affected students’ performance.

Research Questions

High-level overview of RQ1: Implementation of mastery learning in U.S. undergraduate engineering courses

After applying a robust systematic approach we found 23 studies that discussed implementing mastery learning in engineering courses. Because the implementations varied across multiple course topics and disciplines, in the paper we categorized the studies based on commonalities.

We organized studies that applied mastery learning to similar engineering course topics, such as Statics, Dynamics, and Thermodynamics. This grouping allows us to delve into how mastery learning transformed specific subjects. We also clustered implementations that didn’t share identical courses but shared common engineering disciplines (e.g., mechanical engineering) or general course themes (e.g., programming, design, and computer-based courses). This grouping approach helped us explore the broader impact of mastery learning within specific engineering disciplines and themes.

In our analysis, we’ve dissected these implementations using three crucial characteristics: the evaluation metrics/assessments used, the number of retake opportunities provided, and the feedback offered by instructors. We conceptualized these characteristics as the DNA of each implementation. When engineering educators consider implementing mastery learning, they face choices in each of these areas.

Additionally, in the published paper, we touch on the difficulty of retakes and the point values associated with them, elements that significantly influence student outcomes. Some instructors gradually increase the difficulty of retake opportunities to encourage mastery on initial attempts, while decreasing point values for subsequent retakes to promote faster mastery. However, it’s worth noting that these aspects were only covered in a handful of studies.

In the paper, we provide a summarized overview of the courses where mastery learning was applied and the evaluation methods employed for each course. We explore the specific features of each implementation, shedding light on the diverse strategies employed. The variations we’ve observed among the mastery learning implementations could reflect the unique preferences and inclinations of instructors. Unfortunately, the reasons behind these preferences remain largely unexplored in the literature. Nevertheless, in the paper we provided an overview of how mastery learning was integrated into different courses and discussed the key characteristics that define each implementation. More detailed descriptions of each implementation can be found in the full paper.

High-level overview of RQ4: Instructor Feedback and Recommendations

Only 19 provided information detailing instructor feedback or recommendations about their mastery learning implementations. We organized the information into the following categories (a) benefits, (b) limitations, and (c) recommendations. For the sake of simplicity in this blog post, I will provide a version of the Tables that outline benefits and limitations only. Specific information about the article sources where the benefits and limitations were described can be found in the published paper.

A summary of the benefits of implementing mastery learning that were reported in more than one study.
Benefit	No. of Sources
Mastery learning turns assignments into formative assessments.	4
Students learn they have to make sure their work is correct.	3
Instructors are confident in the relationship between the grade a student receives and their performance in achieving the specified learning objectives.	3
Retake opportunities help students identify errors and deficiencies in their work.	3
Mastery learning approach saves time on grading.	3
The mastery learning grading system is simple, clear, and fairer. Assignments are graded on a mastery basis; instructors spend less time deciding how to distribute partial credit.	3
Students demonstrate a greater ability to solve problems.	2
Students learned or understood better.	2
Data collected on topic or concept pass rates could be used in the program evaluation and program revision process required for ABET accreditation.	2
Achieving mastery of learning objectives, helps students gain confidence in their abilities.	2
Mastery learning helped ensure that every student develop the requisite level of skill and knowledge.	2
Students have a better understanding of the requirements and expectations for a mastery level.	2
Retake opportunities ensure that students are not penalized for learning more slowly.	2
The process of implementing mastery learning can be straightforward.	2
Students know they must demonstrate competency in an exam, and this motivates preparedness. Mastery learning raises standards and improves success.	2
There is a focus on the process of completing the assignment, to achieve mastery of a learning objective rather than simply producing a correct final answer. Students realize the process of producing quality work.	2

A summary of the limitations of implementing mastery learning that were reported in more than one study.
Limitation	No. of Sources
Implementing a mastery learning approach can be time consuming for the instructor.	8
When mastery learning was first introduced to a class, students resisted the new approach or reacted negatively.	3
Students can ‘game the system.’ For example, students can initially submit a low-quality document and later work on the revisions marked by the instructor.	3
Mastery learning can be time-consuming for students.	3