skip to main content

This content will become publicly available on August 23, 2023

Title: Mastery Learning in Undergraduate Engineering Courses: A Systematic Review
This theory paper focuses on understanding how mastery learning has been implemented in undergraduate engineering courses through a systematic review. Academic environments that promote learning, mastery, and continuous improvement rather than inherent ability can promote performance and persistence. Scholarship has argued that students could achieve mastery of the course material when the time available to master concepts and the quality of instruction was made appropriate to each learner. Increasing time to demonstrate mastery involves a course structure that allows for repeated attempts on learning assessments (i.e., homework, quizzes, projects, exams). Students are not penalized for failed attempts but are rewarded for achieving eventual mastery. The mastery learning approach recognizes that mastery is not always achieved on first attempts and learning from mistakes and persisting is fundamental to how we learn. This singular concept has potentially the greatest impact on students’ mindset in terms of their belief they can be successful in learning the course material. A significant amount of attention has been given to mastery learning courses in secondary education and mastery learning has shown an exceptionally positive effect on student achievement. However, implementing mastery learning in an undergraduate course can be a cumbersome process as it requires instructors to more » significantly restructure their assignments and exams, evaluation process, and grading practices. In light of these challenges, it is unclear the extent to which mastery learning has been implemented in undergraduate engineering courses or if similar positive effects can be found. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review to elucidate, how in the U.S., (1) has mastery learning been implemented in undergraduate engineering courses from 1990 to the present time and (2) the student outcomes that have been reported for these implementations. Using the systematic process outlined by Borrego et al. (2014), we surveyed seven databases and a total of 584 articles consisting of engineering and non-engineering courses were identified. We focused our review on studies that were centered on applying the mastery learning pedagogical method in undergraduate engineering courses. All peer-reviewed and practitioner articles and conference proceedings that were within our scope were included in the synthetization phase of the review. Most articles were excluded based on our inclusion and exclusion criteria. Twelve studies focused on applying mastery learning to undergraduate engineering courses. The mastery learning method was mainly applied on midterm exams, few studies used the method on homework assignments, and no study applied the method to the final exam. Students reported an increase in learning as a result of applying mastery learning. Several studies reported that students’ grades in a traditional final exam were not affected by mastery learning. Students’ self-reported evaluation of the course suggests that students prefer the mastery learning approach over traditional methods. Although a clear consensus on the effect of the mastery learning approach could not be achieved as each article applied different survey instruments to capture students’ perspectives. Responses to open-ended questions have mixed results. Two studies report more positive student comments on opened-ended questions, while one study report receiving more negative comments regarding the implementation of the mastery learning method. In the full paper we more thoroughly describe the ways in which mastery learning was implemented along with clear examples of common and divergent student outcomes across the twelve studies. « less
Award ID(s):
Publication Date:
Journal Name:
Zone 1 Conference of the American Society for Engineering Education
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. This work-in-progress paper presents an innovative practice of using oral exams to maintain academic integrity and promote student engagement in large-enrollment engineering courses during remote instruction. With the abrupt and widespread transition to distance learning and assessment brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a registered upsurge in academic integrity violations globally. To address the challenge of compromised integrity, in the winter quarter of 2021 we have implemented oral exams across six mostly high-enrollment mechanical and electrical engineering undergraduate courses. We present our oral exam design parameters in each of the courses and discuss how oral exams relate to academic integrity, student engagement, stress, and implicit bias. We also address the challenge of scalability, as most of our oral exams were implemented in large classes, where academic integrity and student-instructor disconnection have generally gotten disproportionately worse during remote learning. Our survey results indicate that oral exams have positively contributed to academic integrity in our courses. Based on our preliminary study and experiences, we expect oral exams can be effectively leveraged to hinder cheating and foster academic honesty in students, even when in-person instruction and assessment resumes.
  2. Instructor-led presentation-based teaching mainly focuses on delivering content. Whereas student active presentations-based teaching approaches require students to take leadership in learning actions. Many teaching and learning strategies were adopted to foster active student participation during in-class learning activities. We developed the student presentation-based effective teaching (SPET) approach in 2014 to make student presentation activity the central element of learning challenging concepts. We have developed several versions to meet the need for teaching small classes (P. Tyagi, "Student Presentation Based Effective Teaching (SPET) Approach for Advanced Courses," in ASME IMECE 2016-66029, V005T06A026), large enrolment classes (P. Tyagi, "Student Presentation Based Teaching (SPET) Approach for Classes With Higher Enrolment," ASME IMECE 2018-88463, V005T07A035), and online teaching during COVID-19. (P. Tyagi, "Second Modified Student Presentation Based Effective Teaching (SPET) Method Tested in COVID-19 Affected Senior Level Mechanical Engineering Course," in ASME IMECE 2020-23615, V009T09A026). The SPET approach has successfully engaged students with varied interests and competence levels in the learning process. SPET approach has also made it possible to cover new topics such as training engineering students about positive intelligence skills to foster lifelong learning aptitude and doing engineering projects in a group setting. However, it was noted that many students who weremore »overwhelmed with parallel academic demands in other courses and different activities were underperforming via SPET-based learning strategies. SPET core functioning depends on the following steps: Step 1: Provide a set of conceptual and topical questions for students to answer individually after self-education from the recommended textbook or course material, Step-2: Group presentations are prepared by the prepared students for in-class discussion, Step-3: Group makes a presentation in class 1-2 weeks after the day of the assignment to seek instructor feedback and to do peer discussion. The instructor noted that students unfamiliar with the new concepts and terminologies in the SPET assignment struggled to respond to questions individually and contribute to the group discussion based on their presentation. Several motivated students who invested time in familiarizing new concepts and terminologies met or exceeded the expectations. However, a significant student population struggled. To alleviate this issue author has implemented a further improvement in SPET approach. This paper reports teaching experiments conducted in MECH 487 Photovoltaic Cells and Solar Thermal Energy System and MECH 462 Design of Energy Systems course. This improvement requires augmenting SPET with instructor-led concept familiarization discussion on the day of issuing the assignment or close to that; for this step instructor utilized exemplary student work from prior SPET-based teaching of the same course. In the survey, many students expressed their views about the improvement and reported introductory discussions were helpful and addressed several reservations and impediments students encountered. This paper will discuss the structure of the new improvement strategy and outcomes-including student feedback and comments.« less
  3. This complete evidence-based practice paper discusses the strategies and results of an introduction to mechanics course, designed to prepare students for introductory-level physics and other fundamental courses in engineering, such as statics, strength of materials, and dynamics. The course was developed to address historically high failure (DFW) rates in the physics courses and is part of a set of interventions implemented to support student success in a college of engineering and computer science. The course focuses on providing in-depth understanding of Newton’s Laws of motion, free-body diagrams, and linear and projectile motion. Because it focuses on a limited number of competencies, it is possible to spend more time on inquiry-based activities and in-class discussions. The course framework was designed considering the Ebbinghaus’ Forgetting Curve, to provide students with learning opportunities in 6-day cycles: (i) day 1: a pre-class learning activity (reading or video) and a quiz; (ii) day 2: in-class Kahoot low-stakes quiz with discussion, a short lecture with embedded time for problem-solving and discussion, and in-class activities (labs, group projects); (iii) day 4: homework due two days after the class; (iv) day 6: homework self-reflection (autopsy based on provided solutions) two days after homework is due. The assessment ofmore »course performance is based on the well-characterized force concept inventory (FCI) exam that is administered before the intro to mechanics course and both before and after the Physics I course; and on student performance (grades) in Physics and Statics courses. Results from the FCI pre-test show that students who took the introduction to mechanics course (treatment group) started the physics course with a much better understanding of force concepts than other students in the course. The FCI post-test shows better normalized gain for the treatment group, compared to other students, which is also aligned with student performance in the course. Additionally, student performance is significantly better in statics, with 25% DWF rate compared to 50% for the other students. In summary, the framework of the course, which focuses on providing students with in-depth understanding of force concepts, has led to better learning and performance in Physics I, but importantly it has also helped students achieve better performance in the Statics course, the first fundamental course in civil and mechanical engineering programs.« less
  4. Introductory engineering courses within large universities often have annual enrollments exceeding several hundreds of students, while online classes have even larger enrollments. It is challenging to achieve differentiated instruction in classrooms with class sizes and student diversity of such great magnitude. In such classes, professors assess whether students have mastered a concept through multiple-choice questions, marking answers as right or wrong with little feedback, or using online text-only systems. However, in these scenarios the feedback is of a mostly binary nature (right or wrong) with limited constructive feedback to scaffold learning. A growing concern among engineering educators is that students are losing both the critical skill of sketched diagrams and the ability to take a real system and reduce it to an accurate but simplified free-body diagram (FBD). A sketch-recognition based tutoring system, called Mechanix, allows students to hand-draw solutions just as they would with pencil and paper, while also providing iterative real-time personalized feedback. Sketch recognition algorithms use artificial intelligence to identify the shapes, their relationships, and other features of the sketched student drawing. Other AI algorithms then determine if and why a student’s work is incorrect, enabling the tutoring system to return immediate and iterative personalized feedback facilitatingmore »student learning that is otherwise not possible in large classes. To observe the effectiveness of this system, it has been implemented into various courses at three universities, with two additional universities planning to use the system within the next year. Student knowledge is measured using Concept Inventories based in both Physics and Statics, common exam questions, and assignments turned in for class. Preliminary results using Mechanix, a sketch-based statics tutoring system built at Texas A&M University, suggest that a sketch-based tutoring system increases homework motivation in struggling students and is as effective as paper-and-pencil-based homework for teaching method of joints truss analysis. In focus groups, students believed the system enhanced their learning and increased engagement. Keywords: sketch recognition; intelligent user interfaces; physics education; engineering education« less
  5. Promoting equitable undergraduate engineering education is an overarching concern at many minority-serving institutions (MSI). In addition, historical analysis of student performance in lower-division math and engineering courses at one of the largest MSI revealed an achievement gap in performance between the underrepresented minority students and other students. Furthermore, critical analysis of underlying factors overwhelmingly suggests that academic intervention coupled with sociocultural intervention may be a possible solution to help address this problem. Academic and sociocultural intervention strategies were designed and implemented in lower-division math courses through the National Science Foundation-funded project, “Building Capacity: Advancing Student Success in Undergraduate Engineering and Computer Science (ASSURE-US).” These strategies involved application-based math courses targeted explicitly at undergraduate engineering students. Results of academic intervention strategies in the lower-division math courses at one of the largest MSI demonstrate mixed effectiveness. The results of the academic intervention in lower-division Calculus I (N=150) show that 36% of students reported that the intervention was helpful and helped them learn math, while 38% were neutral. Overall, students reported having difficulty connecting the projects with the mathematics being taught. Similarly, only 10% of students expressed satisfaction with the redesigned intervention modules implemented in Integral Calculus II (N=90), while 52% were neutral.more »The sociocultural interventions include activities facilitated through the Student-Teacher Interaction Council. These activities include motivational speakers, exam preparation and stress-relief workshop, campus resources and college financial planning workshops, peer advising and learning communities, summer research, and faculty development and support. Results of the sociocultural intervention strategies show that 39% of students reported that the ASSURE-US project helped them identify role models in their discipline, while 34% reported that the project helped them identify and connect to a mentor. Students also reported higher awareness of campus resources, including mental health resources and academic support, with 89% and 90% of students reporting fully or partial understanding of these resources. The academic and sociocultural interventions of the ASSURE-US project were initially designed for in-person, hands-on, project-based, and student-faculty-involved activities; however, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many of these activities were reimagined and redesigned for virtual instruction. The outcomes of this project so far were significantly impacted by the pandemic.« less