Charles N. Elliott Senior Seminar The Need for Mastery in Educational Methods Keywords: intrinsic motivation perceived choice self-efficacy goal orientation autonomy informational feedback

Raise your hand if you have… Experienced long, extraneous tests requiring “cramming” due to length? Wanted to know more about the subject, but didn’t get to learn it in class? Felt like a class went by so fast you could not remember what was learned? Felt like you received too much extra credit, curves, or incentives to complete a class? Felt like you could learn materials better if the strategies were your own? and more importantly… Activity Demonstration How many feel like this when their class could have been like this ?

Educators should readily adopt mastery learning in teaching methods in order to better suit the psychological needs of the learner. Core Argument (Keller, 1983) Mastery Learning Model: Large Exam Many Lessons Class Average Extra credit or curve to bring up average. The “Problematic” Learning Model: (delay; non-frequent) (comparison evaluation)

Motivation: Deci and Ryan (1985) indicated autonomy, relatedness, and competence lead to intrinsic motivation, and viewed self- determination as lying on the spectrum of extrinsic motivation(being external) or intrinsic motivation(being internal). –Intrinsic motivation consistently shows more powerful over extrinsic motivation in learning across many of Deci and Ryan’s studies. Goals: Elliot and Harackiewicz’s (1996) goal orientation theory identified individuals adopt either mastery or performance-based goals. –Additionally, these individuals can approach or avoid academic goals for both categories. Their research consistently shows approach-mastery goals as significant in the learning process. Mastery: Self-efficacy is the extent or strength of belief in one's ability to complete tasks and reach goals (Bandura & Schunk, 1981). –An educator can use feedback as a means to control the level of self-efficacy in classroom settings. Choice: Cordova and Lepper (1996) measured learner’s strategies and manipulated multiple experimental conditions to provide for more or less choice. –Students benefit most when choice is the key aspect to learning, and are given choice about their strategies. Literature Background

Based on the described theories: Educators should allow students to be more intrinsically motivated in the classroom setting. Self-efficacy should be fostered through informational feedback provided by the instructor. Performance-based testing should only occur frequently or in “chunks” to benefit the testing effect. Tests should not weigh heavily on a student’s success in a class, but allow for more frequent mastery in learning individual lessons. Large, extraneous final exams or mid-terms can disincentivise the learner. Social comparisons based on performance standards (external; such as test score means or GPA) largely demonstrate the type of motivation occurring during these tests. Mastery-based goals should be adopted through having students achieve for themselves on learning activities, and through their own chosen or adopted learning strategies on these activities. The effects injunctive norms (described in Cialdini, Kalgren, & Reno, 1991) in the classroom setting should not be undermined, as they shown powerful affect in many experiments across almost four decades. Performance-based goals should be checked through the removal of curves or compensational extra credit. These goals should also not involve social comparison, because it causes an immense decrease in intrinsic motivation and autonomy in the classroom setting. Theoretical Background

Educational Psychology: Keller’s research describes the motivational factors that help facilitate mastery learning in classroom environments. He describes how these factors must be supported through his conceptual model that aids intrinsic motivation. –Keller, J. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: An overview of their current status, 383–434. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Social Psychology: Elliot and Harackewicz strongly demonstrated that, through multiple regression analyses, intrinsic motivation was increased by the application of mastery goals during the learning process. –Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: a mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 461–475. doi: / Supporting Evidence

Cognitive Psychology: Testing is beneficial in retaining of information when applied frequently and on a regularly scheduled basis. This is contrary to a mastery assessment, which involves only application of a certain lesson and not retesting any cumulative information. –Meyer, A. N. D., & Logan, J. M. (2013). Taking the testing effect beyond the college freshman: Benefits for lifelong learning. Psychology and Aging, 28, 142–147. doi: /a Social Psychology: Choice can be demotivating when too much choice is offered in classroom settings. Providing the accurate amount of choice is needed in modeling a mastery classroom, which is extremely difficult to measure due to variability. –Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (2000). When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 995– doi: / Opposing Evidence

Not enough teaching application occurring. –Mastery learning in education needs to be normed. Old models need new refinement. –Further manipulation of variables which show the strongest effects. More experiments to demonstrate reliability of past methods. –A cyclical understanding of the learning process is needed. Application in public and private education is needed. –Sociological and statistical outcomes. Strong internal validity is needed in teaching methods. –What we can support with control groups and evidence based research. Teaching bias should be avoided at all costs. –Teachers have bias about the subject, and it needs to be reduced in the classroom. Social comparison, or injunctive norms, are disincentive the learner. –The emphasis on means or averages should not weigh so heavily on the learning of course materials. Conclusion from Bloom, 1968 Distributions for a subject

Questions asked at NCUR (National Conference for Undergraduate Research) : How does this effect me as an individual? What can we do to implement this process? What else can be contributed? Why is mastery not used more often? Does mastery learning disadvantage others? How valid is mastery learning? Questions?

Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 586–598. doi: / Bloom, B. S. (1968). Learning for Mastery. Instruction and Curriculum. Regional Education Laboratory for the Carolinas and Virginia, Topical Papers and Reprints, Number 1. Evaluation Comment, 1, n2. Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 1–243. Cordova, D. I., & Lepper, M. R. (1996). Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: Beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 715–730. doi: / Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press. Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: a mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 461–475. doi: / Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (2000). When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 995–1006. doi: / Keller, J. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional Design Theories and Models: An Overview of Their Current Status, 383–434. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Meyer, A. N. D., & Logan, J. M. (2013). Taking the testing effect beyond the college freshman: Benefits for lifelong learning. Psychology and Aging, 28, 142–147. doi: /a References