fig WWMlIIUHHIWHHHIHWIIHHIWNNIIHWHI

THE828

Imuulllillfilllml‘llIllill‘llllmuml

3 1293 01770 0588

LIBRARY

I Michigan State
1 University

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Mastery Learning in Ecology

presented by

Tammy L. DeBaar

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

MS degree in Interdepartmental
Biological Science

. %%Wi

Major professor

 

 

Date 24 November 1998

 

0-7 639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

PLACE IN REFURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINE return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1/93 membranes“

 

MASTERY LEARNING IN ECOLOGY

BY

Tammy L. DeBaar

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE
College of Natural Science
Division of Science and Mathematics Education

1998

ABSTRACT
MASTERY LEARNING IN ECOLOGY
BY

Tammy L. DeBaar

Mastery Learning as a basis for teaching Ecology was
chosen for this study to provide lower learning capacity
students with motivation for learning science. Mastery
learning allows these students the freedom to choose
methods of learning that reflect their learning styles. I
chose the unit of Ecology because it is the first and
longest unit I teach. By studying the effects of this
teaching technique early in the year, I was better prepared
to provide proper activities the rest of the year. By
providing a variety of different activities, students were
able to choose activities that matched their work
preferences (most often areas they feel successful in), and
to raise their scores to the scale of mastery (80%). These
areas were indicated by preferences the students made in
their choice of learning activity. The student's overall
attitude toward science was increased with their success,

and attendance also increased as a result.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Without the advice and encouragement of Dr. Martin
Hetherington, Dr. Howard Hagerman, and Dr. Merle Heideman.
and the funding of both the Towsley Foundation and the
National Science Foundation, this thesis would not have
been possible. I also appreciate the insight and
cooperation from my students and department peers. They are
full of much needed help and never lack ideas. Furthermore,
I thank my daughter for her patience with me for the time
and energy put into this project and for being so forgiving
that I could not play another round of catch or read

another book.

111

TABLE OF CONTENTS,

Introduction ........................................... 1
Demographics ....................................... 2
Implementation of unit ................................. 15
Background ......................................... 15
Overview of research changes ....................... 15
Methods and materials .............................. 17
Summary and evaluation of lab and field exercises.. 23
Evaluation of students ................................. 29
Results ............................................ 32
Appendices ............................................. 41

Overview of mastery learning unit
Letter from team teacher
List of References ..................................... 47

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1— Comparison of key topics for unit between
traditional and mastery learning.

Table 2- Test score and attendance data.

19

.32

INTRODUCTION

Demographics of school and community:

Mastery Learning is the application of lessons in
the classroom with the goal of helping each student achieve
mastery on material (in this case, a minimum score of 80%).
Mastery allows them to build a bridge to further their
learning of the material and all material forthcoming. Level
of mastery is determined by frequent feedback by means of
quizzes on subunits of information. The students are
separated into two categories at this time: those who
achieved mastery (minimum 80% score) and those who did not.
Mastery Learning is also intended to develop a sense of
success in those students who do not otherwise succeed by
traditional methods of instruction.

Mastery Learning was first described in Bloom's
Learning for Mastery model in 1968. Professor Benjamin S.

Bloom of the University of Chicago was seeking ways for

teachers to provide higher quality learning experiences for
individual students within the classroom setting. He first
examined the traditional curriculum in which the teacher
follows a prearranged curriculum in a prearranged time frame
to cover a predetermined set of chapters from a
textbook(Bloom, 1971).

This method of teaching and learning is different from
traditional methods of classroom instruction because of the
focus on mastery of the subject, and the variety of modes of
instruction to assist the students that do not initially
achieve mastery. These modes are based on the different
types of intelligence, or rather, the different ways of
processing information, depending upon the individual's
feeling of success in certain areas (Baum, 1995). Because I
was unable to complete a survey of the intelligences of the
students in this study (for lack of time due to departmental
constraints) I assume that students choose work that they
feel successful doing. These will be referred to as ”work
preferences" and are expected to indicate areas of talent
for the individual student. I have included specific
examples of these preferences related to themes of Ecology.
They are as follows:

1.) Vbrballhinguictic- The student produces poetry,

essays and oral interpretations such as an essay contrasting

the different types of climates in different biomes
indicating the verbal— linguistic learning style.

2.) Logical/Mathematical- The student produces creative
solutions, inventions, or experiments and indicates a
logical-mathematical style. For example, the student may
work on a local environmental concern.

3.) Visual/Spatial- The student produces advanced art,
photography, models or maps, such as a detailed map of a
woodlot plot in which areas are monitored for change in
animal habitat for flora growth. These work preferences
show a visual-spatial work preference.

4.) Body/Kinosiology- In this area, the student
produces advanced creative game strategies, theater,
machines or inventions such a board game using review
questions on habitats and communities. These are ”doing"
exercises.

5.) music/Rythynr If the student produces advanced
compositions, rhythmic patterns or vocal interpretations,
such as a rap song about food chains, they are likely
talented in the area of the musical-rhythmic learning style.

6.) Intra-personal- A personal philosophy and moral
systems about a topic such as ' man's impact on the
environment" might be produced by a student with strong
intra-personal skills which are found in students that have

a strong sense of their own values and morals.

7.) Rules/Systems- If the student researches opinions
of community members on an environmental disaster and
chooses to defend opposing opinions in a role play his work
preference is likely to be inter—personal in which advanced
creative laws and rules and political systems are designed.

Students in this study were primarily tenth grade high
school students in my Life Science classes at a high school
in a rapidly growing rural area. The school was named
Michigan Exemplary School in 1992 and is a large class A
high school. The community is unusual in that there are
basically only two socio-economic groups: upper level,
consisting primarily of doctors and lawyers and lower level,
made up of inconsistently employed factory workers, often
unable to support their families. During my four years as a
teacher in this community, the county has been ranked one of
the highest in the State of Michigan for unemployment, and
one of the highest in the nation for teen pregnancy. The
students in this study are mostly from families of the
latter type, and are often overheard saying ' I'm a dirt
head and will always be a dirt head." They see no real
reason nor have desire to better themselves and feel they
are destined to be poor forever. Many of their families are
dysfunctional; many of them are being raised by guardians
other than their parents, and receive little, if any,

support from home.

Both classes for this study consisted of approximately
25 students. They primarily are 10th and 11th graders,
lower income students with relatively poor reading levels,
poor organizational skills and study habits. They have been
through traditional educational methods of merely "moving
on” to the next topic, whether they have mastered the
material or not. They have not often experienced success.
This has led, in some, to poor attendance, low self-esteem
and a general dislike for school. It is a constant
challenge for me, as a teacher, to meet the needs of
students in this classroom. Some are gifted in the areas of
math, some theater, some are strictly visual learners, and
some are at a reading level of a 3rd grader, as determined
by standardized tests at the school at which I teach. More
than 50% are learning disabled, approximately 25% are
emotionally impaired, and all but 3-5 in both years of this
study have Attention Deficit Disorder. I strive to make the
teaching and therefore the learning meaningful for all of
these students and to allow for personal success and
satisfaction in the field of science.

Because these students are in special ed. mainstream
classes, many of them have a learning disability of some
type. These learning disabilities cause them to avoid
certain styles of learning, and they make choices based on

areas in which they have found success in the past. Some of

their disabilities are emotional. Most of the students are
Attention Deficit labeled and do not take medication,
whether it has been prescribed or not. This information has
been passed on to me by the special education teacher
working as a team teacher in this classroom. Official
demographic statistics are on file in the office of this
school.

In his research aforementioned, Professor Bloom found
that the strategies of individualized instruction of the
tutor and constant feedback of work done at the pace of the
learner produced positive, successful results in which
students learn more and better as measured by standardized
tests. In this type of situation, a tutor provides verbal
and written feedback according to the understanding of
material and quiz scores. The tutor also provides a
specific remediation procedure, if necessary, for the
student. This is in contrast to classrooms where tests are
given at the end of a unit, which provide only information
for the teacher as to who in the class is doing well and who
is not. (Bloom, 1968) The constant feedback and opportunity
for the student to relearn what he did not master the first
time provides the learner with an opportunity to succeed, as
well as gaining important information on which to build
other concepts. It is also the job of the teacher to not

only facilitate the learning process for the student

learner, but to gear the opportunities to correct(students
would be placed in the CORRECTIVE group to RELEARN) mistakes
in a method according to the specific learning style of the
individual, much as a one on one tutor would do. These
students are then able to master the material by revisiting
the material in another way. The Corrective is an activity
that presents this material in another form. (Guskey, 1990)
It is my finding in the investigation of multiple
intelligences and learning styles, that when given a choice,
a student will choose an option for learning or review that
matches an activity at which they can be successful.
Therefore, I have focused on work preferences because the
preferences will lead to a feeling of success, and will also
lead to motivation to complete and attend to work as well as
mastery of the material. Hence, by taking into account the
learning style of the student, success breeds
success.(Gardner, 1995)

The activities for this study were in the
logical/mathematical, visual/spatial, and intra-personal
categories. In my study, the students did not feel
comfortable presenting material orally. Rather, they felt
more at ease with artistic expression, often discussing
moral implications, and chose hands-on experiments in which

they were the creators of the protocol, allowing them to put

their energies into the task at hand, rather than its
presentation to others.

Highlights of research on the effects of Mastery
Learning developed by Bloom (1974) and further investigated
by Guskey and Gates (1986) are as follows;

1. Achievement results are overwhelmingly positive, as
measured by test scores and student interview response.
2. Student retention is greater for those undergoing the
mastery learning process in both 2-3 week, short term
studies as well as 4 month, long term studies.

3. The time actually engaged in learning is greater in
mastery learning classes as opposed to traditional classes.
The time spent on correctives also decreases over time.
4. Students in mastery learning classes are more positive
about learning and their confidence in their ability to
learn is greater than others.

5. Teachers in these classes also have more positive
attitudes, higher expectations for students, and more
responsibility for the outcomes of their students.

The implications for instruction using a mandatory
learning model are to provide choices for the student based
on multiple intelligences and learning styles, provide
individual support for the student, provide clear quality
standards, and make connections to other topics and real-

life issues. The study of Ecology is appropriate for this

type of instruction due to the hands-on practicality as well
as the increased opportunity for hands—on labs in the
environment. Furthermore, when focusing on the work
preferences of my students, I can use variety and
flexibility not only to reach all students, but to motivate
them and make class more interesting.

The introduction to an Ecology text by Harmon Sutton
(1973) begins with a quote by Dylan Thomas, author of A
Child's Christmas in Wales, in which a science text was
referred to as “a book that told me everything about the
wasp, except WHY". In a world where mankind, specifically
youth, fails to take responsibility for himself or herself,
ecology and the study of the environment illustrate the
effect mankind has on his surroundings. Ecological
principles explain the relationships within the environment
and therefore answer the WHY. Because of the location of the
school in this study, a lack of high tech lab materials, and
a need to make the information extremely practical and real,
my choice of basing this study on Ecology and the
environment seemed to be very appropriate for the teaching
of mastery learning.

Furthermore, and most importantly, the study of
Ecology was the first unit covered in the school year. I
wanted to test out the Mastery Learning technique

immediately and apply its benefits or failures to my

planning for the rest of the year. We begin with a study of
interrelationships between various flora and fauna in the
food web. I was able to provide a very hands-on approach to
the study of interrelationships in this study because the
time of year is appropriate for this and the environmental
setting of the high school provides for a varied
environment. The students were not limited by their
immediate surroundings in their own back yard. There were
plenty of natural relationships to study right around
school: at the river, in the woods, or in the wetlands
nearby. I wanted to use my research for the benefit of my
students as close to the beginning of the school year as
possible.

With this opportunity, I was able to incorporate a
variety of activities and choices for activities that
allowed me to examine the full potential of work preferences
as a guide for teaching. This continued to be the situation
for teaching the rest of the topics in the unit and enabled
me as the facilitator to provide many options for students
to learn.

The school setting is ideal for teaching ecology. It
is located in an area surrounded by woods, a wetland is
nearby, and the Flat River is within walking distance, even
in a class period. This allowed me to incorporate activities

such as water testing of the river and examination of food

10

chains and webs in the different types of environments.
These ideas encouraged the student to combine different food
chains, view the predator prey relationship in action and
actually see man's effect on the environment. After the
study of interrelationships, we were able to base our
education on environmental concerns and finally on man's
relationship to the environment: How does he/she affect it
and what can he/she do to conserve it? Because local
legislators were willing to come to our school, the students
had a first hand interview with their State Representative
and were able to ask their own questions about local
environmental policies

Again, the setting of the school provided the location
for the study of water and land pollution and we could
directly measure soil samples for pollution and test the
river for pollutants. The use of the Hach testing kit for
bodies of water gave us real data with which to discuss the
effect of pollutants on plants and animals in the river. We
answered the questions " How much oxygen is present in the
river? How much is needed by fish? How much carbon dioxide
is produced by the animals living in the river? How is the
relationship of fish to animals affected by pollutants? What
are the sources of pollution in this particular river?” This
brought our study back to the relationships in the

environment, the effect man has on the environment and how

11

we can protect the environment. The work preferences that
were most often chosen by students were a debate, a
discussion in which the State Representative came to discuss
current environmental concerns and the students were
required to summarize the discussion, and a woodlot plot.
The woodlot plot was an excellent way to culminate all of
the activities in a variety of ways. For example, the
students were required to observe a plot of land in a wooded
area over 10 weeks. They were expected to document by camera
and in written form (some students chose a video camera or
tape recorder as their preference) any changes in habitat,
plant and animal life and what affect man has had or will
likely have in the next decade.

In my research of the topic of mastery learning and
learning styles that affect the teacher's choice of both
Enrichment and Corrective materials, it was evident that
practicality and real-life situations as well as hands on
activities are best for this type of education. These topics
were chosen for this study because they are hands-on
activities centered on the learning styles found to be work
preferences in my class. These activities were appropriate
for each individual, better enabling him/her to be
motivated, and find interest and success in this unit. The
personalization of material to be learned needs to be

related to the student and based on something that the

12

student can visualize (Gardner, 1995). For example, if the
student can actually test the Flat River for oxygen content
and the consequent effect on fish, see the flow of ground
water through a model, and talk directly to a local
legislator about what is being done about pollutants in the
ground water, the material is personalized and the effect is
much greater. All children can learn when provided with
conditions that are appropriate for their learning.

(Gardner, 1995) Methods of Mastery Learning in the teaching
of Ecology require a flexibility to individualize teaching
and learning within the typical classroom setting (Guskey,
1981). Because the study of Ecology uses the environment as
the laboratory and therefore provides many additional
options for activities for both Enrichments and Correctives,
there is no better way to bring the material into the hands
of the students.

Using the outdoors as the laboratory for instruction is
an integral part of this unit. According to Science
Instruction in the Middle and Secondary Schools:

Laboratory work is a unique type of instruction that
must be an integral part of science teaching. This type of
activity involves students in firsthand experiences that
permit them to participate in science as a way of thinking
and as a way of investigating. Laboratory work provides

students with concrete exemplars of science concepts and

13

principles, which can serve to reinforce course content.
(Collette and Chiappetta, 1986)

Furthermore, students achieve higher scores on
procedural tests when they perform the experiments
themselves, as opposed to the traditional textbook style of
teaching science. Students are also able to apply the
problem solving skills learned in laboratory research to
enhance their scientific knowledge.

(Glasson, 1989)

I strongly feel that a study of the effect of
pollutants on the community and the effect on food chains in
this environment is an ideal situation for the material to
be personalized to the student. This is important for the
student, regardless of their learning difficulty or learning
style, or even their socioeconomic status.

Our students will someday be making decisions about
issues of water loss, increasing air pollution, acid rain,
and other threats to our planet. Therefore, they need to be
equipped with solutions and options for the proper
management of our world. This and the hands on nature of the
activities guarantee students' interest and comprehension
while they learn the important scientific processing skills
that apply to all sciences and discover the excitement of

Ecology. (Galle, 1989)

14

IMPLEMENTATION 01' UNIT

Background

For this study, I compared two large groups of students
of approximately the same size. The first is the control
group; students in my Life Science classes during the 1995-
1996 school year, in which I used primarily traditional
methods (see comparison of the two methods) of teaching the
four to five weeks of material (Ecology). The second group
is students of the same background in my classes during the
school year 1996—1997, during which I used the Mastery
Learning Technique. Both groups were about the same size,

25 students. (See Demographics, p. 1)

Overview of Research Changes:

In both test groups, I worked closely with a special
education team teacher who assisted with the group work,
division of the class into the two core groups, feedback on

learning styles and evaluation.

15

The traditional unit studied during the school years of
1995, 1996 and 1996, 1997(control group) was a 4-5 week
study of Ecology using text book—driven, traditional methods
of instruction. The traditional style used primarily
reading/ writing types of activities with few practical labs
and the students were expected to move along at the same
pace. They were instructed to read the text, organize
materials into notes and perform some in-class labs. Due to
the poor reading skills of the students (as indicated by
standardized tests given by the team teachers) the students
did not comprehend the material, if they read it at all.
This, along with test scores that should have been better,
brought about my desire to develop a different unit, one in
which students had choices to motivate their learning and
reflect their intelligence.

In the Mastery Learning course (1996, 1997) students
were separated into groups according to their scores on
frequent quizzes. The groups were those that had mastered
the material with a minimum quiz score of 80% and could move
on and those that had not yet mastered the material. These
quizzes were both written and verbal. Students that did not
master the material with a score of 80% or above were
expected to relearn the material in a different way. This
different way was indicated by choices that reflected their

learning style, or the way they processed information. The

16

learning styles were categorized into 7 groups (see
introduction). According to my experience, my students
tended to choose activities with which they felt successful,
reflecting their learning style. I chose to alter the
material from the 1995-1996 school year by taking the text
topics for the unit (below) and adding alternatives for
different learning styles as well as adapting the current
text and materials into a hands on approach, using the
outdoor community as a laboratory. Key topics were the same
for both traditional and mastery learning groups. Lesson
ideas were altered to mastery learning style for the second
year of the study. Differences between the units are

indicated in Table 1.

lbthods and Material-

The text ("Biology "; an Everyday Experience" by
Kaskel, Hummer, Jr., Daniel Merrill Publishing Co. Columbus,
Ohio 43216 Copyright 1988) was the basis of teaching
information for both the test group (1996-1997) and the
control group (1995-1996). This was not chosen by me, but is
the required text for the teaching of this class. It is
appropriate for this group of students because of its
readability level as well as its many diagrams. On a

computer readability test, the text scored at the sixth

l7

grade reading level. It has short paragraphs, not much
writing on each page, lots of graphs, charts and pictures
and explains terms very well. However, the text does not
focus on hands on activities, making the research for this
study even more necessary, and drawing a greater distinction
between the traditional, textbook class format and that of
mastery learning.

In order to eliminate variables such as differences in
core teaching material that might affect the outcome of this
study, I used the classroom materials from the 1995-1996
school year as a basis for the materials for the 1996-1997
school year.

Methods of evaluation included the t test to compare
the scores of the unit test for the 1995—1996 group and the
1996-1997 group and a formal interview of students conducted
by the principal of the school. I also sent out a student
questionnaire to both groups of students to determine the
success felt by the student, self-respect, and general like

or dislike of the class and material.

18

Table l

COMPARISON OF KEY TOPICS

 

 

I. Topics

Mastery Learning unit Traditional unit
A. Habitats (food chains, same
etc.)
B. Biomes same

 

-ground water, current same
legislation,

pollution

 

 

 

l9

 

II. Lesson Ideas

Mastery Learning unit Traditional unit

A. Habitats

 

1. Nature hike 1. Brainstorm
organisms, put into . journal
habitat . review

0 Journal*

0 Set up
aqua/terrariums
from the river

habitat

 

2. woodlot plot* 2. owl pellet lab*

3. owl pellet lab*

 

 

 

 

B. Biomes

 

0’ research types of biomes 0 same
0 'visit to local botanical 0 same
gardens
0 build as rainforest in* 0 murals depicting artistic

 

 

 

 

20

 

 

school library, fill with expression of biomes
flora and fauna typical of

the biome, monitor climate

 

 

C. Environmental issues

 

 

0 ‘water testing* 0 groundwater model

0 fish lab to examine*
tolerance of fish in
different water conditions

e groundwater model* 0 jpollutant lab to test

. 'visit from local* difficulty in removing

legislator/debate based on pollutants from water
interview with various ' debate

community members
0 letter writing to ' same
legislator about local
environmental concern
0 scrapbook/news article ' same

critique, summary

 

 

*See ” Laboratory and Field Exercises” section for a
detailed description of these activities.
This unit covers the topics of Habitats, Biomes, and

Environmental Issues. The Habitat section consists of a

21

 

 

study of food webs and interrelationships, such as
commensalism and parasitism, as well as a discussion of
abiotic versus biotic factors in the environment. This
section includes a ten week study of a wooded area and the
changes that occur over time.

The section on biomes compares and contrasts the
different biomes and takes account of the water cycle and
the Nitrogen cycle. This section includes construction and
maintenance of a rainforest.

Environmental Issues studied are local and apply
information learned in the previous sections to mankind’s
impact on the environment. Role—playing and a discussion
with the State Representative are part of this section.

I was very excited about this study and was quite
positively disposed about the results. Because of this, I
was concerned about a personal bias toward the research data
from the mastery learning process as compared to the
"traditional group". Therefore, the principal and my team
teacher helped in the evaluation, especially the verbal
evaluation, so my bias toward the mastery learning process
would not affect the results and skew the information.

In addition, any verbal evaluations were done by peers
within the classroom, or by my team teachers or assistants

in the classroom.

22

Summary and Evaluation of Laboratory and Field Exercises

As stated before, these activities were used as part of
the mastery learning technique to appeal to the various
modes of thinking and learning in the individual student, as
well as to provide a motivation for learning the subject
matter. A review of these non-traditional activities and my

evaluation follows.

A. JOurnal: The students drew food chains and web diagrams
depicting the concept links via verbal and written form.
Information for journal entries was taken from several hikes
to the areas near campus which included a woodlot, marsh and
river. Over several days, the students would list in their
journal the organisms seen on our hikes. The students were
asked to do this on their own, while working on their
woodlot plot project.(see below)

The journal was also used for the random question of
the day, indicated in the overview. Because of the mastery
learning process, the students in the mastery learning group
were encouraged to choose different modes of communicating
information in their journals. Some students chose a video

camera, tape recorder, or drawings.

23

B. woodlot plot project: This was an exciting, but time
consuming project for all of us. It consisted of a ten week
study of animal species, change in environment and
interactions, habitat location, weather, flora and
interrelationships of the chosen area, as well as man's
impact on the environment. The students were required to
keep their own weekly documentation of the changes, as well
as take photos of the changes of one, consistent site. Some
students took videos of the site, or used a tape recorder
instead. This activity was excellent for providing choices
to students, which is a key factor of the mastery learning
process, especially for the deaf student and the blind

student in this class.

C. Owl pellet lab: The students dissected owl pellets to
examine the predator prey relationship in a real-life
example. They were able to piece together bones to construct
the skeleton of the prey. This is a very "hands on" type of
activity appropriate for the mastery learning technique
because it goes much farther than pictorially illustrating
the relationships of organisms in the food chain. It was

chosen by many students as a work preference.

D. weter testing: Using Hach test kits, we examined the Flat

River for Ph, oxygen, and carbon dioxide content. We then

24

related this to amounts needed by producers and consumers
and the health of the river. This activity was taken from
lab work done at Kellogg Biological Station and is an
excellent component of the mastery learning process because
it provides for a variety of learning styles or work
preferences. Those include hands on collection of data,
analysis of the data, written response and oral discussion

with the class.

B. Fish lab: Students examined the respiratory rate of fish
in different types of water, by counting the opening and
closing of the gills. They then discussed and applied
information about carbon dioxide content, oxygen content,
and findings of the water test at the river, continuing the

mastery learning process of the previous lab.

F. Pollutant lab: In order to illustrate the longevity of
pollutants in a body of water, we attempted to filter out
representatives of local pollutants (coffee grounds, olive
oil, etc.). We then discussed the cleanliness of water after
attempting to naturally filter out the "pollutants”. This
became a major component of the mastery learning process
because it provided for many additional activities such as

interviews with the members of the community, role-playing,

25

a debate, actual participation in a town meeting and

simulation of voting with the State Representative.

G. Debate: Students were asked to take on the roles of
different members in a community and in a debate, represent
these community members by lobbying for their point of view
in relation to an environmental issue. This task dovetailed
with many work preferences. Often, views were not those of
the students and it was interesting to see them defend
another point of view that was not their own. They acquired

information by interviewing people in the community.

H. Reinforest project: After touring local botanical
gardens, we were able to construct a living rainforest in a
greenhouse in the library; We chose jplants and. animals
appropriate for the climate. This particular activity was
the cornerstone for my research on mastery learning. It was
completely designed and carried out by students. The ideas
were presented by students and all problem solving was done
by students as well. A variety of work preference choices
were available at all times. With this activity, I saw all
of my students motivated and involved in the entire process,
regardless of their prior motivation or success record in
previous classes. The funding for this structure was donated

by the District's Education Foundation and the project

26

brought much positive public approval. The structure was
designed, built, and maintained by the collaborative efforts

of my students, the math class, and the wood shop students.

I. Groundwater model: Using a model, we examined and
discussed groundwater flow and the duration of pollutants in
the water cycle. This was another opportunity to further
investigate the effects of mankind on the community and to
provide choices to students to learn the material, similar
to the study of the river (see D-G) above.

Once again, the Enrichment Group has mastered the sub
unit of material and, in the respect of time, need something
interesting, yet motivating to work on while the other
students (the Corrective Group) can catch up. The
Corrective Group is made up of students that need extra or
different activities to meet their level of learning and
their type of intelligence (visual, spatial, etc.) in order
to allow them to reach mastery.

To the Enrichment Group, I presented motivational
materials (such as the maintenance of the rainforest and
presentations to lower elementary students that pertain to
the topic of study. For the Corrective Group, I devised
activities and lessons that present the material in an
alternative way, (thus the focus on learning styles) or

review the material.

27

The students in both the test group and the control
group, of the previous year, worked in groups as much as
possible. I thought it important for these students to
problem solve together and to share small successes in the
group atmosphere. It was difficult during both years to keep
all of the students on task at all times. However, that
problem resolved itself when each group received a grade in
three parts. The group members rated themselves as well as
the other members of the group on time spent on task,
reliability, and general knowledge about the project, and I
rated them as I watched the development of the project.
Group projects were the debate during both years, and the

rainforest during the test years.

28

EVALUATION OF STUDENTS

In summary of my study of and experience with mastery
learning, I found that it is important that I check my
students for understanding by frequent quizzing (both
written and oral) so I am able to give them constant
feedback. I can also determine when they are ready to move
on to the next subunit. Students scoring an 80% or above on
these quizzes are placed in the Enrichment group and those
scoring below an 80% are placed in the Corrective group. The
quizzes determine into which of the two groups they are
placed before moving on. These two groups engage in
different activities as follows:

A. Enrichments provide interesting yet educational
topics for students to study that have mastered the
material. Students in this group have mastered the
material, according to the quiz and they require some
motivational work in order to maintain pace of all students.
For example, the maintaining of a classroom rainforest is
motivating, but not something that the students feel that
they are penalized by doing "extra” work because they

mastered the material.

29

B. Correctives provide students with the ability to
master the material. These activities are based on the
different learning styles as listed on page one. For
example, a student that falls into the visual-spatial
category, as indicated by choices in the areas of student
success, may be able to revisit the predator-prey
relationships by dissecting an owl pellet and putting
together the bones of the rodent prey.

Correctives and Enrichments are designed to work in the
typical classroom due to their flexibility for both
individual and cooperative learning. They can be made up of
activities chosen by students, according to areas in which
they achieve success. They are geared to manageability and
effectiveness and are tested in real classrooms, not
laboratories. They are different from traditional methods
of instruction, because they give students the opportunity
to learn at their own pace and according to methods that
’suit their way of processing information. '(This) evidence
indicates that although mastery learning strategies are not
an educational cure-all, they can be an exceptionally
effective tool that teachers can use to have a much more
important influence on the learning and achievement of their
students." (Guskey, 1980)

Another measure of success is attendance for this unit.

The unit study took place over approximately five weeks.

30

Attendance is regularly a problem for these students in all
classes. Since these students met during first or second
hour, the least attended hours for this type of student, I
thought attendance would be a good measure of interest, and
therefore, improvement in the unit. Attendance in the class
did increase compared to prior years as a result. A third
and final method of evaluation is attitude and feeling of
safety and well being on the part of the students. This was
tested by regular, informal discussion with these students,"
eavesdropping “ in on their conversations, class
participation, and interviews of students by myself and the
principal. Both test scores and attendance were compared

between the two classes (Tables 1 and 2)

31

Table 2:

TEST SCORE AND ATTENDANCE DATA

Control Group Test Group
1995/1996 Data 1996/1997 Data
2nd hour, 23 students lst hour,25 students

Unit test score

mean: 72% mean: 80%
median: 71% 72%
mode: 75% 86%

t test data:

T score=(mean l-mean 2)/Standard deviation of

the mean

80-72/4.84

32

8 /4.84

1.65 (meaning, t test is

close to one)
Standard error of the mean of the control group is 9.36.
Standard error of the mean of the mastery learning group is
Because the t test is close to one, null hypothesis is
disregarded, although slightly. This indicates that there
is a difference between the two groups, but it is not a

great difference.

Table 3

Attendance

2.09 days absent (avg.) 1.16 days absent

per 5 weeks

33

Overall, my students in the first hour Life Science
Class did very well with the Mastery Learning Technique.
Although the mean scores for both the test group and the
control group were 72% and 80% which translates to a C and B
average, respectively, I felt that the scores were not
necessarily the only thing indicative of success. The score
of 80%, in this case, is chosen as the threshold for
mastery, and the test group attained this level.

According to all teachers involved, motivation and
success did not appear to be present in 1995/1996. These
students have been too " average", if that, and have felt
apathetic about school. From talking with them, I have found
that they do not typically feel that school applies to them,
and especially science.

Not only were the students in the test group able to
achieve the knowledge and information at their own pace, but
they also were able to acquire a sense of success; very
important to all students, but especially these. They needed
a bit of flexibility in the schedule and they responded well
to that. Since there was a real but not large difference in
scores between the two groups, the overall attitude of the
students and the tone of the classroom may be more important
than the written scores themselves. One of the students
commented: “She respects us as students and people, and her

desire is to encourage us and help us to do well." Although

I do not have hard data on this type of measurement, my
perception, my peers' perception, and the principal's
perception was one of vast improvement in the overall tone
of the classroom.

However, it is important to note that I went into this
study with an expectation for immediate success. In my study
of the mastery learning process, I was taken in and felt
that it was infallible. I was also strongly encouraged about
using the method of mastery learning in my teaching by my
fellow teachers and the director of curriculum. I went to
many conferences on the topic and was sold on the idea based
on the seemingly huge success rate of the presenters.
Everything I read about the topic was exciting and very
positive. It seemed that using this technique with my lower
learning capacity students could not go wrong. After all,
these students need to be given their own time to succeed
and to learn the material in their own way. Mastery learning
for the study of Ecology seemed to be the answer for a lack
of success that had been prevalent in this type of student
for several years. However, my initial enthusiasm led me to
overlook possible downfalls with the technique.

I failed to realize the effects of human nature. The
major problem with my study was that the students realized
at an early stage that they would have a second opportunity

to be evaluated and therefore, they did not give their full

35

effort from the beginning. Because of my bias, I did not
catch this at the beginning stages and was not able to
prevent this from happening. They found a loophole in the
process and eventually put little effort into succeeding.
They were able to find out the information on which they
would be tested by taking the first quiz. Then they could
save themselves time or energy by preparing at a minimum,
for only the portion of material that would be on a test.
Many of the students then failed to see the whole picture.
I also found a discrepancy between my study and that of
Guskey and Gates (1986). They both found an increase in
memory as well as a decrease in the time required for

correctives. My students increased the time on correctives

 

because of the fact that this was the first time many of
them put real energy and effort into learning the material.
The difference in overall score was only 8%. The test
group had a mean score of 80% and the control group had a
mean score of 72%. Although this is an increase and the
testing group score of 80% does indicate mastery, it appears
that the students worked only to the level of mastery, once
again indicating their lack of consistent effort throughout
the entire testing period. When we examine the t test data,
we find that there is a t score of 1.65, thus indicating a
slight difference, but the difference is shown only in the

area of raw score, not knowledge of the material. The larger

36

the obtained value for t, the greater the chance of
rejecting the null hypothesis. We reject the null hypothesis
at .10, allowing us to conclude the slight difference in
score between the two groups, but not an increase in
knowledge of the students. A lack of knowledge is indicated
by the lack of success on the initial quiz, represented by
large numbers of students that had to participate in the
corrective group.

The principal carried out informal interviews with the
students, asking them how they felt about the instruction
and how they felt about me as a teacher. I also sent out a
student questionnaire, asking students to anonymously
respond to issues of respect, success and organization of
material (see appendix 3). The responses were
overwhelmingly positive. The principal's interview collected
responses such as “personal, exciting, energetic, helps ME
as a student"

The survey collected responses such as

" You respect me and my needs."

" I feel I can do well with what you give me.

My only excuse is myself."

" I do well with the choices you give us. It makes it

fun to learn."

37

The hands on activities approach has long been my most
effective way to teach science, due to the feeling of
understanding I receive from my students when working on
these types of activities. Coupled with the opportunity to
use the environment as our laboratory, it was a success. The
labs and activities,such as the woodlot plot and the
rainforest were heralded by my peers and my mentors as
excellent methods of teaching this unit. We were able to
integrate additional subject matter by working with the math
students and woodshop students on the construction of the
rainforest.

Changes to be made to the project is to incorporate
more mentoring within the classroom by encouraging all
levels of students to take a chance at tutoring each other
or even students from the district's elementary schools.
Another issue is technology: I would like to feel more
comfortable myself with bringing technology into the study
of Ecology and I would like to be able to offer this as
another ” choice” or method of learning for my students.
After all, they are more versed on the computer than I am
and need to be able to practice and review their technology
skills. I would like to do this by using interactive
computer programs based on Biomes and Habitats and also to

do more testing of water and soil in methods used at KBS:

38

sensors, to be used in the classroom and in exchange with
other schools. The Internet will be a great advantage when
researching legislative decisions on the environment and
local concerns.

Furthermore, I would like to research ways to
eliminate any chance of the students to take advantage of
the program. Perhaps I could set it up in a fashion similar
to Harberts and Nicolette,(1995) in which the entire unit is
exposed to the students and it was to be completed within a
certain time frame. Each individual piece is to be completed
at the pace of the learner, and in a way that is suitable
for him or her to learn the material best. This may
eliminate the problem of the students not putting forth
initial effort.

I would also like to allow students to brainstorm ways
in which the material can be "enriched" or " corrected" and
take care to respect their opinions and needs. Based on this
program and the positive feedback I received by
administrators, I believe it likely that I would have the
support to acquire more funding and technology for the
teaching of this unit. My curriculum supervisor is pleased
with the results that he has seen in a variety of classroom
settings with mastery learning and I have strong support
from him. He has commented. ' We need to ensure that every

student here has the opportunity to learn science, by

39

whatever method suits him, and mastery learning seems to
suit that need."

Most importantly, I feel that the student improvement
in feeling a successful, sincere sense of responsibility for
the stewardship of the environment, attaining a desire to be
in school, and a feeling of safety within the classroom
environment is invaluable. No test can measure these things,

yet these are the key issues that affect true learning.

40

APPENDICES

Overview of Mastery Learning unit

Vocabulary

A. Habitats (Ch. 30)
niche, biotic, abiotic, ecosystem, community,
population, organism , producer, consumer, decomposer,
mutualism, commensalism, parasitism, competition ,
predator, prey

B.Biomes (Ch. 31)

climate, succession, Nitrogen cycle, water cycle

CL Environmental Issues (Ch. 32)

pollution, legislation, ground water

Overview of Mastery Learning unit

Day 1 Pretest in order to assess background knowledge. This
may be done as a clinical interview.(See Appendix A)

Day 2 Introduction to Ecology
*start text Chapter 30, p.553

Walk in the woods adjacent to the school and down
by the neighboring river.
The task is to document all organisms seen or
heard. (Group or individual)
Assignment: formulate a web of relationships.

Day 3 Question of the day (5-10 min. at the beginning of the
class to review information or to relate new information to
prior knowledge. This activity also warms up the students'
thinking)

"How do the populations of the community depend on each
other?"

42

 

(see text for reference)

Compare assignments with other students. Discuss
similarities and differences.

Using a mural, chalkboard, bulletin board, etc.
devise a whole-group web.

While examining the whole group web, break it
down into food chains.

Terms used today: population, community, food
chain and food web, organism

Day 4 Assignment: What are possible producers and possible
consumers in the area?

What is a decomposer? Give examples of each.

Day 5 Question of the day

"Make a food web with one consumer, three
producers, and two decomposers. You must use a primary and a
secondary consumer and an herbivore.” Use your text for a
resource, if necessary.

Woodlot plot discussion (See Appendix)

Discuss trip to the river to set up mini
habitats

Discuss Mastery Learning Process with students.
Explain method as well as reason for the change from the
traditional method. Explain groupings, ask for suggestions,
choices.

Review terms thus far, in verbal and picture form

Day 6 Evaluation/Quiz
Examine leaf collection examples to assist work
on woodlot plot*
Examine keys
Do activity 30-2 " What are some parts of a food
chain and a food web” (See
Appendix)

Day 7 Question of the day: "Put our class food chain into an
energy pyramid. Why are the bottom layers bigger than the
top layers?" See your text for assistance.

Split class into two groups: Those who have
mastered material and those who have not mastered material.
Identify these groups as " Enrichment Group" (E) or as

"Corrective Group” (C)

43

E. Set up terra/aquariums to be filled on field trips

OR choice of text reading, jigsaw notes with
partner (each student is held responsible for the teaching
of a portion of notes to the other members of their teacher

chosen group.

C. Meet as a group, verbally go over terms, using various
examples. Refer to class
food web.

OR choices (see above)
Day 8 Field Trip to the Flat River. Set up terra/aquarium.

In class assignment, to be given BEFORE going
to the river.

Give an example of each of the terms we have
studied thus far from the Flat River.

Homework assignment: do the same for your
woodlot plot. Check progress on woodlot Plot. (This
assignment due in 3 days)

Day 9 E. Maintain aquarium

C. Requiz to determine if relearning was

successful.
Make class list of examples from assignment.

Read sections 30:8-30:10.
Answer "Reflect and Review ' p. 569.

Study Table 30-2. Go over questions,
highlight examples from text. Use

relationship examples (social)
Day 10 Chapter 31 begins on p. 573

Question of the day: "Describe the differences
between the flora and fauna in a desert, tundra, and a
temperate forest. What biome is Greenville found in?"

Read chapter silently. Describe an imaginary or
visited place that corresponds to one of the key areas. (see
map p. 583) in journal form.

Set up Activity 31-2 (text p. 581)

Day 11 Check activity. Answer questions.

Make murals of biomes. Start by brainstorming
characteristics of different biomes.

Day 12 Jigsaw activity for groups of three. Prepare for quiz
this week on jigsaw activity of the following information.

Group member A. Text section 31:1 Nitrogen
Cycle
Group member B Text section 31:2,3 Water Cycle
Group member C Text section 31:5,6 Succession

Assignments due tomorrow, do activities on your
group member's info.

Day 13 Correct each other's activities.
Finish murals

Day 14 Question of the day; "What are some characteristics
of a rainforest biome? Where

are they found in the world? "

Discuss rainforest setup

Review day. Add any additional terms at this

time in note form as well ( niche,

habitat, biotic, abiotic, ecosystem,
competition, predator, prey)

Assignment for tomorrow; Find examples of these
terms on field trip
Day 15 Field trip to Botanical Gardens
Day 16 Set up rainforest* in library
Day 17 Quiz

Correct in class, divide into new mastery
learning groups, dependent upon latest scores.

Day 18 Group work: Split into group B or group C
E. Maintain aqua/terrariums

OR choices
C. Do 31-A,B,C,D as a group or individually
OR choices

Day 19 Go over all material from yesterday, correct

45

Work on rainforest in library. Continue set up
" Any Content -Any Time" Activities, due
tomorrow at the end of class
Requirement: all terms from the Habitat
material (ch.30) and from the Biome material (ch.31) must be
covered.

Day 20 Review individually or in small group tasks
accomplished thus far

Day 21 Evaluation Day, using material "created" by students

on Day 19
Quiz, made up of student derived questions from Day 19

Day 22 Discuss current community environmental issues, go to
the Flat river for water testing
Assignment: newspaper critique and summary.(See

Appendix )
Day 23 Visit from Legislator

Day 24 Discuss legislator's visit and current, local topics
( newspaper articles, Flat river
test)
Groundwater model

Day 25 Hand back evaluations and discuss, review
Fish lab*

Day 26 Question of the day " What is pollution? Give a local
example and a suggestion to solve the problem" Compare and
discuss (Use ch. 32 as a resource)

Prepare for role play activity tomorrow

Day 27 Role play. Take on the role of a local person to
debate community environmental issues.

Assignment; write a letter to a legislator
expressing a concern for our environment.

Day 28 Post test

46

B I BL I OGRAPHY

47

LIST OF REFERENCES

Baum, Susan 1995 "Enhancing Multiple Intelligences" for
Secondary Educators College of New Rochelle New Rochelle, NY

10805

Bloom, B.S. 1968. Learning for Mastery. (UCLA-CSIP)
EValuation Comment, 1(2), 1-12.

Bloom, B.S. 1971 HUman Characteristics and School Learning,
New York: McGraw Hill

Bloom, B.S. 1974. An Introduction to Mastery Learning
Theory. In J.H. Block (Ed.), Schools, Society and.Mastery
Learning (pp.3—l4). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Collette,Alfred T.,& Eugene L. Chiappetta 1986 Science
Instruction in the.Middle and Secondary Schools, p. 238.
Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co.

Fiske, E.B.1968 ' New teaching method produces impressive
gains." The New Ybrk Times Sunday, 3—30-80, 1 and 3

Fraenkel, Wallen, 1996 How to Design and Evaluate Research
in Education McGraw Hill pp. 211,2118,219

 

Galle, Warren Ecology Discovery Activities Kit Center for
Applied Research in Education; New York, NY pp. 1-34, 38

Gardner, Howard 1995 ” Reflections on Multiple
Intelligences" Phi Delta Kappan, Nov. 1995 pp. 200-209

Glasson, George E.1989 The effects of hands-on and teacher
demonstration laboratory methods on science achievement in
relation tom reasoning ability and prior knowledge. JOurnal
of Research in Science Teaching 26(2): 121—131

Guskey, T.R. 1980 ' What is mastery learning and why do
educators have such high hopes for it?" Instructor, 1980,90
(3) I 80-86

48

Guskey, T.R. 1981 'Individualizing instruction in the
mainstream classroom: A mastery learning approach."
Education unlimited, 1981,3(1), 12-15

Guskey, T.R. 1986 "The Essential Elements of Mastery
Learning" JOurnal of Classroom Interaction Vol. 22, No. 2
pp. 73-80

Guskey, Thomas R. and Gates, Sally 1986 " Synthesis of
Research on the Effects of Mastery Learning in Elementary
and Secondary Classrooms" Educational Leadership May, 1986,
Vol. 23, No. 8, pp. 73-80

Guskey, Thomas R. 1990 "Cooperative Mastery Learning
Strategies." The Elementary School JOurnal Vol. 91, No. 1,
September 1990, pp. 33-42

Harberts, Nicolette 1995 " An Overview of Mastery Learning"
presentation to Greenville Public Schools February 15,19

Kaskel, Hummer, Jr. Daniel 1988 Biologyzan Everyday
Experiencei Merrill Publishing Co., Columbus Ohio 43216

Sutton, Harmon 1973 Ecology; Selected Concepts Wiley and
Sons, Inc.; New York, NY pp.vii, viii

49

50

MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES
llHlWillHHIIFHIWWINIUWlIWIIHIIIWIWHI
31293017700588