MASTERY LEARNING APPROACH AND MATHEMATICS ACHIEVEMENT OF

GRADE 10 STUDENTS IN ORIENTAL MINDORO NATIONAL HIGH

SCHOOL: A BASIS FOR INTERVENTION MATRIX

A Thesis Proposal
Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School
Divine Word College of Calapan
Calapan City

In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
MASTER OF ARTS IN EDUCATION
Major: Mathematics

By:

LIEZEL A. GONZALES
September 2016
 CHAPTER I

The PROBLEM and its SETTING

Introduction

Mathematics is considered the mother of all learning in both arts and sciences. It is the

science of numbers, quantities, and shapes and the relations between them. It is essential in

almost every field: measurement in fashion, angles in sports, technology and economics. This

perspective on Mathematics has gained more attention with the rapid advances of information

and communication. Mathematics is not just computation but a tool for understanding structures,

relationships and patterns to produce solutions for complex real life problems. Mathematics is

indeed a necessity for people of all ages to be successful in life (Andaya, 2014).

Despite the recognition accorded to Mathematics due to its relevance, still, most of the

students perform below average in Mathematics in terms of quizzes and major examinations

which are the components in the computation of their grades. They are 40%, and 20% of the

grades respectively. The remaining 40% is for the product/performance. This condition is evident

in the students’ performance in the National Achievement Test (NAT) where 98.01% of the

students poorly performed in Mathematics (Rayos, 2012).

According to Olunloye (2010), this ugly trend of high failure rate in Mathematics is a

national disaster. Therefore, feasible ways of improving the performance has remained an area of

great concern for researchers. The deplorable state of mathematics achievement is attributed to a

number of factors such as attitude of students (Uhumuavbi and Umoren, 2005); lack of

instructional resources (Yara and Otieno, 2010); and instructional techniques (Olulonye, 2010).

Although many factors affect a student’s mathematics learning and achievement, one factor over

which schools have the most immediate control is the choice of mathematics program to be
implemented by teachers, administrators and curriculum developers. Instructional technique

adopted by the teacher can be manipulated to bring about improvement in performance of

students. Hence, teaching and learning of mathematics consistently generates interest among

scholars over the years. Several studies have shown that good instructional strategies are capable

of improving the achievement of students in mathematics and other subjects (Iji, 2005;

Ihendinihu, 2008).

Bloom (1974) observed that the usual practice of most teachers is to begin the lesson by

dividing the concepts and skills that they need to teach to the students into smaller learning units.

Following instruction on the unit, teachers administer an assessment to determine how well

students have learned the subject matter. After that, the teacher will proceed to the next topic

without prior feedback about the result and remediation activities if the students failed to master

the topic. Based on the assessment results, students are sorted, ranked, and are given grades.

This assessment represents the student’s only chance to demonstrate what they have learned.

According to WAEC (2010), current results show that this traditional teaching approach

is deficient in meeting the needs of majority of learners. Research evidence shows that this

condition of non- insistence on mastery of materials learnt at each of the earlier stages may cause

high drop-out and stagnation rate, etc. What is imperative then is an innovative proposal for

change, a significant department from current practice, and a redirection of education for this

country.

Many researchers including Bloom believed that mastery learning approach is an

effective method of instruction to alleviate this problem. Mastery learning (Block and Anderson,

1975) is an approach to learning intended to bring all students to a pre-established level of

mastery on a set of instructional objectives. In this approach, students are taught of well- defined
objectives, formatively assessed, given corrective instruction if needed, and then summatively

assessed. This model provides teachers with timely feedback about the progress and deficiencies

of students in meeting specific instructional goals and presents a curriculum that provides extra

time and opportunities for all students to attain mastery. This learning approach takes care of

individual differences in learning, due to individual student’s characteristics as well as their

aspirations. Mastery learning as an instructional strategy is based on the principle that all the

students can learn a set of reasonable objectives with appropriate instruction and sufficient time

to learn.

In mastery learning classes, students are not advanced to a subsequent learning objective

until they demonstrate proficiency with the current one. Students must demonstrate mastery on

unit examinations, typically 80%, before moving onto new material (Davis and Sorrell, 1995).

Students who do not achieve mastery receive remediation through tutoring, peer monitoring,

small group discussions, or additional homework. Additional time for learning is prescribed for

those requiring remediation.

Bloom and his students conducted many empirical studies that showed that mastery

learning programmes are very effective in a wide variety of situations (Levine, 1985). Other

researches on mastery learning in schools have also shown positive cognitive learning outcomes

in students (Akinsola, 2007, Aderemi, 2006, Kazu, Kazu and Ozedemir, 2005). These results

were supported by some scholars in their study of the effectiveness of mastery learning as an

instructional strategy. Samuel (2007), Wambugu and Changeiywo (2008), Olunfunmilayo (2010)

and Akinsola (2011) reported that MLA is effective in improving the achievement of students in

the sciences. Similarly, Abakpa & Iji (2011) and Awofala & Nneji (2012) concluded that MLA
enhanced students’ achievement in mathematics in Markurdi (Benue State) and Ibadan (Oyo

State).

The aforementioned studies proved that mastery learning is especially applicable in

Mathematics. Mathematical concepts are hierarchically organized such that failure to learn

prerequisite skills is likely to interfere with students’ learning of later skills. In Mathematics,

concepts are inter-related and inter-woven and any student who fails to master the pre-requisite

to a particular topic may not be able to master the topic. Overmyer (2010) stated that the

challenge of covering the entire mathematics syllabus while accommodating the needs of

struggling students creates an almost impossible situation. Consequently, many students move

through the mathematical curriculum with deficiencies. Students stumble through the

mathematics curriculum with these gaps in learning, gaps that seem to grow exponentially, until

finally, frustrated by continuous failure, many drop out, he added.

This study wish to find out the effects of mastery learning on the achievement in

Mathematics of Grade 10 students in Oriental Mindoro National High School. The result of this

study will be a basis for an enhanced Mathematics instruction.

Research Locale

Oriental Mindoro National High School (OMNHS), formerly known as Jose J. Leido Jr.

Memorial National High School, is the flagship campus and the largest Public High School in

Oriental Mindoro. It was established in 1921 and is located in San Vicente East, Calapan City in

Oriental Mindoro.
 The school site was acquired through deed of donation made and entered into between

the Provincial Government of Oriental Mindoro.

Oriental Mindoro National High School (OMNHS) was named Oriental Mindoro

National High School(OMNHS) by virtue of Batas Pambansa No. 249 dated: November 11,

1982. In 1984, through a legislation, it was again renamed Jose J. Leido Jr. Memorial National

High School.

Meanwhile, in 1989, it was assigned as the Regional Leader School for Social Studies

and MAPEH, and consequently as Division leader School in 1993. From 2002 to 2005, it housed

the newly created Calapan City Division Office..

For a number of years, this institution has been adopting the Department of Education

implementing guidelines for admission policies and curricular offerings. It offers K to 12 Basic

Education Curriculum, Science, technology, Engineering and Mathematics Program (STEM),

Special Program in the Arts(SPA), Special Program in Sports(SPS), Special Education(SPED),

Evening Opportunity Classes(EOC), Open High School Program(OHSP), Alternative Learning

System (ALS) and Special Program in Journalism (SPJ). To support diverse curricula, the school

organized School-Managed Computer Class, Dance Troupe, Brass Band, Drum and Lyre,

Theatre Arts Group, Students Combo, Our Lady of Charity Rondalla, Flute Ensemble, Students

and Personnel Choir, Visual Arts Group, Creative Writing Group and HI and MC SPED Classes.

The Institution is fortunate enough to have a strong thirty (30) non-teaching and one

hundred seventy-nine(179) teaching personnel. The leadership is bestowed on a young and

dynamic Principal IV with the support of eight(8) Head Teachers VI. Of the 179 teaching force,

eighteen (18) are Masters Teachers II, nineteen (19) are Master Teachers I, seventy-three (73) are
Tecahers III, thrity-five (35) are Teachers II, thirty-four (34) teachers I and one (1) SPED

Teacher.

Of the thirty (30) non-teaching personnel, one is Administrative IV, one is Accountant,

one Guidance Coordinator, four Guidance Counselors, one is School Nurse, one is Librarian, ten

are Administrative Aides, and two are Security Guards.

The 95 year old Institution holds distinction of being the oldest and premiere secondary

school in Oriental Mindoro. It brings to greater heights the concept of sustainability via its

tradition of excellence and service. Further, it has produces not only eminent men and women in

education, science, industry, media and government service, including counsellors, mayors and

governors. It has also nurtured alumni catholic priests and school principals.

As an academic institution, it proves triumphant over the seemingly insurmountable

challenges faced by an educational institution as it educated competent and committed

professionals in the different cluster of disciplines.

OMNHS has been an icon of quality education for years. As an autonomous school, it

has gained honors and prestige through its internationally-acclaimed achievements. Now, it

continuously strives to achieve excellence in student’s performance.

Despite the achievements the school had, it is quite alarming that it is still one of the

schools which poorly performed in Mathematics in the National Achievement Test (NAT) for

consecutive years. This condition motivates the researcher to use OMNHS as the setting for the

study considering also the diverse learners it has from the regular sections.

Theoretical Framework
 The concept of mastery learning can be attributed to the behaviorism principles of

operant conditioning by B. F. Skinner. According to operant conditioning theory, learning occurs

when an association is formed between a stimulus and response (Skinner, 1984). In line with the

behavior theory, mastery learning focuses on overt behaviors that can be observed and measured

(Baum, 2005). The material that will be taught to mastery is broken down into small discrete

lessons that follow a logical progression. In order to demonstrate mastery over each lesson,

students must be able to overtly show evidence of understanding of the material before moving

to the next lesson (Anderson, 2000). Strengthen this part. .habaan

On the other hand, Gagnes Theories of Learning (date)

Another concept that is related with mastery learning is Bloom’s theory of school

learning (date). In this theory, Bloom shows the importance of teaching for mastery in his

taxonomy of six educational objectives. He concluded that student must be able to master and

remember the concept or simply gain knowledge of the concept before he will be able to move to

the levels of comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation.

Conceptual Framework

Mastery Learning Approach

Learning Objectives
 Corrective Instruction

CG CG
PRE -TEST POST -TEST

EG EG
PRE -TEST POST -TEST

Intervention Matrix

Figure 1: Hypothesized relationship among the variables of the study.

The box above shows the independent variable of the study which is the Mastery

Learning Approach in terms of (a) learning objectives, (b) formative assessment and (c)
corrective instruction. The double-headed arrow in the left (downward) shows the difference on

the scores in the pre-test of the experimental and control group while the double-headed arrow at

the right (downward) shows the difference on the scores in the post-test of the two groups. The

double-headed arrows (leftward) show the difference on the scores in the pre-test and post-test of

the control group and the difference on the scores in the pre-test and post-test of experimental

group.

The dotted lines connecting the box below anticipate the results of the study that will

somehow contribute to Mathematics instruction in the educational system.

Statement of the Problem

This study will determine the effects of mastery learning approach on selected Grade 10

students’ Mathematics achievement in Oriental Mindoro National High School.

Specifically, this study tried to answer the following questions:

1. What is the level of performance of the control group of Grade 10 students in

Mathematics in their pre-test?

2. What is the level of performance of the experimental group of Grade 10 students in

Mathematics in their pre-test?

3. What is the level of performance of the control group of Grade 10 students in

Mathematics in their post-test?

4. What is the level of performance of the experimental group of Grade 10 students in

Mathematics in their post-test?

5. Is there a difference between the mean pre-test scores of the experimental group and

control group?
 6. Is there a difference between the mean scores in the pre-test and post-test of the conrol

group?

7. Is there a difference between the mean pre-test scores and mean post-test scores of the

experimental group?

8. Is there a difference between the mean post-test scores of the experimental group and

control group?

9. What is the intervention matrix that could be implemented in the educational system if

there is a significant effect of mastery learning approach on Mathematics achievement

of Grade 10 students?

Statement of the Hypotheses

Based on the presented questions, the researchers formulated the null hypotheses:

1. There is no difference between the mean pre-test scores of the experimental group group

and control group.

2. There is no difference between the mean scores in the pre-test and post-test of the control

group.

3. There is no difference between the mean pre-test scores and the mean post-test scores of

the experimental group.

4. There is no difference between the mean post-test scores of the experimental group and

control group.

Significance of the Study

 The results of this study would be beneficial to the students, mathematics teachers, school

administrators and future researchers.

Students. This study would help the learners in dealing with their mathematics subjects. They

would be able to handle their attitude and behavior towards the subject and improve their

academic performance with the use of this approach. Through this, the student’s self-confidence

will also be developed. The results will be given to the students so that they will know more

about mastery learning approach.

Mathematics Teachers. This would also be a great help for the teachers to understand why the

learners fail to master the previous topics, how this affects their academic performance in

Mathematics and what techniques they should do to help the learners master the lesson.

Teachers have the biggest responsibility in order for the students to have mastery in the subject

matter and see to it that no one in the class is left behind (U.S. Congress, 2001).

School Administrators. This study would help them take actions to improve the academic

performance of the students especially in Mathematics by engaging them in different activities

and remedial programs that will surely help them to gain the mastery before they continue to the

next topic.

Future Researchers. It would serve as a source of information for future researchers who are

aiming to know what mastery learning approach is all about and its effect to the academic

performance of the students.

Scope and Delimitation of the Study

 This study will focus on the effects of mastery learning approach on Grade 10 students’

Mathematics achievement in Oriental Mindoro National High School. There are many core

elements of mastery learning that the study can focus on. These are the learning objectives,

formative assessments, corrective instructions, pre-assessment with pre-teaching and group-

based initial instruction. The study will focus on the first three elements and will not include the

other elements stated. It will also focus on the difference of students’ Mathematics achievement

using mastery learning approach and the traditional teaching method.

It will be conducted in selected fourth year students enrolled at Oriental Mindoro

National High School for school year 2016-2017.

Fourth year students will be selected as the respondents of the study since they are in the

crucial year in high school. In this level, students will be asked to take the National

Achievement Test (NAT) to determine the students’ capacity of learning. Ratings obtained from

NAT serves also as a tool to measure the school’s competency and effectiveness as well as the

students’ aptitude and mastery towards the basic learning areas.

Definition of Terms

To ensure deeper and clearer understanding of this study, the following terms are

operationally and conceptually defined:

Control Group – It is the one who will not receive the experimental treatment. This group will

be exposed with the usual method, the traditional teaching method.

Corrective Instruction – It consists of educational activities that are given to students who

initially fail to achieve an objective. It is designed to increase the number of students who

master educational objectives.

Experimental Group – As used in an experiment to test a variable, it is the group to which the

test variable is administered. It refers to the group of participants who are exposed to the

independent variable.

Formative Tests – These are assessments used to measure student’s learning in a certain topic.

This will guide the teacher on what he/she is going to do next after the students learned the topic

and what he/she is going to improve for those students who did not pass the test.

Intervention Matrix – It is designed to help educators identify and implement interventions for

students who are not learning and/or mastering the mathematics skills that they need to be

successful.

Learning Objectives – These are the provided educational goals for the teachers and students

that need to be attained throughout the teaching-learning process.

Mastery Learning Approach– It is a strategy wherein the students need to master the content of

the topic before proceeding to the next one. Here, the teacher provides remediation activities to

the students who do not master the topic at once.

Mathematics – It is a subject that must be taken and passed by every student in order to be

qualified for next higher math subjects embedded in every educational curriculum per year level.

It is also an abstract study of the measurement, properties, and relationships of quantities and

sets, using numbers and symbols.

Mathematics Achievement – It refers to the level of achievement of the respondents in

Mathematics represented by the increased on the scores obtained from the pre-test and post-test.
Pre-test – It is an assessment given before the start of the teaching-learning process to measure

the students’ strengths and weaknesses in the subject matter.

Post-test –It is an assessment given to students after completion of an instructional program or

segment and often used in conjunction with a pre-test to measure their achievement and the

effectiveness of the program.

Traditional Teaching Method – It refers to the usual teaching practice of teachers where they

introduce the topic, discuss and administer a test after. Correctives are applied to those students

who failed in the test.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW of RELATED LITERATURE and RELATED STUDIES

 This chapter presents the review of related literature and related studies deemed relevant

to the investigation.

Related Literature

Mastery learning is a learning concept first developed from the Mastery Learning Model

created by Benjamin Bloom, an American educational psychologist. An example of mastery

learning is that a child in his early years of school will need to master the concept of adding

numbers by hand before moving on to multiplying numbers. This idea of mastery learning

consists of topics that children will begin on the same level to master. The children who do not

master will not move on to the next part of the learning experience until they master the current

concept. They often will be given extra help and more one-on-one time until they succeed. 

According to Guskey (2007), Bloom observed that teaching all students in the same way

and giving all the same time to learn--that is, providing little variation in the instruction--

typically results in great variation in student learning. Students for whom the instructional

methods and amount of time are appropriate learn well, and those for whom the methods and

time are less appropriate learn less well. Bloom believed that all students could be helped to

reach a high criterion of learning if both the instructional methods and time were varied to better

match students' individual learning needs. In other words, to reduce variation in the achievement

of diverse groups of students and have all students learn well, Bloom argued that educators and

teachers must increase variation in instructional approaches and learning time. Bloom labelled

the strategy to accomplish this instructional variation and differentiation, mastery learning.
Research evidence shows that the positive effects of mastery learning are not limited to cognitive

or achievement outcomes. The process also yields improvements in students' confidence in

learning situations, school attendance rates, involvement in class sessions, attitudes toward

learning, and a variety of other affective measures.

Mahon (2012) cited that Mastery Learning is based in the philosophy that every child can

learn, given the appropriate learning conditions. It describes a process whereby each child

must master a given learning unit before continuing to the next, more advanced learning unit. In

Mastery Learning, the objectives for each unit are well described.  The task the student must

perform is defined; the skill to be acquired and performed is clear. Large units are broken into

subunits and subtasks.  Frequent, formative assessment occurs, not for purposes of evaluating the

learners, but to allow the instructors the opportunity to adjust the instruction. Mastery Learning

can be used in group, peer, individualized, computer-based, or any other kind of instruction.

In addition, mastery learning is an alternative method of teaching and learning for many

students who do not respond well to traditional instruction. Like cooperative learning, mastery

learning is a strategy that looks unfavourably on competition among individual students when

learning the subject. Moreover, it is a strategy that makes the students responsible for their

learning. (Motamedi & Sumrall, 2000).

Distinguishing features of mastery learning include (a) curriculum alignment, (b) learning

objectives, (c) formative evaluations, (d) feedback and correctives, (e) retesting cycles, and (f)

criterion referenced. Each is briefly described to give readers a fuller picture of mastery learning.

Vertical and horizontal curriculum alignment involves the similarity of course content taught and

tested (Lezotte, 2002). Horizontal curriculum alignment refers to the linear progression of course

material from lesson planning through teaching and testing. Vertical curriculum alignment refers
to the hierarchical nature of Bloom's (1956) taxonomy of six educational objectives (e.g.,

knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation). Vertical curriculum

alignment means course material is taught and tested according to the same knowledge level

because understanding course content at lower levels (e.g., knowledge) does not guarantee

understanding at higher levels (e.g., synthesis).

The philosopher Seneca once said, “If one does not know to which port one is sailing, no

wind is favourable.” When you know where you are headed, you can more easily get there.

Well-defined and articulated learning objectives are important because they provide students

with a clear purpose to focus their learning efforts, direct the teachers’ choice of instructional

activities, and guide their assessment strategies.

A learning objective is an outcome statement that captures specifically what knowledge,

skills, attitudes learners should be able to exhibit following instruction. A common

misapplication of objectives is for the teacher/presenter to state what he is going to do rather than

what the student is expected to be able to do.

Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives is a framework for classifying educational

objectives, which are the statements of what educators expect their students to have learned by

the end of instruction (Krathwohl, 2002).

Bloom’s cognitive domain consists of classifying learners’ thinking behaviours into six

increasingly complex levels. Knowledge is at the basic level. Then learners progress cognitively

to the levels of comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and to evaluation, which is at the

highest level of complexity. Each subsequent level is dependent upon the learner’s ability to
perform at the level preceding it. The teacher’s challenge is to encourage students to master their

current level and to move on to the next.

Another key component of mastery learning is frequent and brief formative assessments

that guide both learning and instruction (Guskey, 2005). These assessments provide both the

students and the teachers with feedback about whether a particular goal has been mastered.

Students who do not meet the criteria for mastery are given correctives, such as alternative

worksheets, peer-tutoring, computer aided instruction, or other varied learning tools. It

commonly takes the form of short ungraded quizzes and will be referred to in this study simply

as quizzes. Quizzes are intended to monitor learning progress and, therefore, often do not count

toward final grades. Summative evaluations are a normal part of higher education and normally

take the form of graded exams (objective or other format).

On the same note of Guskey (1997), there are many ways to create formative assessments

and, provided that they test vital concepts for mastery, any type is useful. Formative assessments

should be clear. There should be no ambiguity on the test. It should have precise directions. The

learner should know exactly what to do in order to be tested. And the last one, it should take up

a minimal amount of classroom time.

Bloom also recommended that teachers use feedback and correctives. Feedback refers to

instructors' providing information on student learning progress. Correctives refer to correcting

student learning errors by re-teaching material, providing remedial material, or using other

methods. After students completed their corrective activities they were able to take a second

formative assessment. This allowed teachers to verify whether the correctives had helped the

students and served to motivate the students because they had a second chance to achieve. He
also suggests that for assessments to become an integral part of the instructional process,

teachers need to change their approach in three important ways. They must "1) use assessments

as sources of information for both students and teachers, 2) follow assessments with high-quality

corrective instruction, and 3) give students second chances to demonstrate success" (Guskey,

2007).

As averred by Guskey (2009), in mastery learning classes, corrective activities typically

add about 10–20% more time to initial learning units. For a unit of a week or two in length, for

example, corrective instruction might last one or two days. Bloom (1974) argued, however, that

intense, individualized assistance offered early in an instructional sequence would drastically

reduce the time needed for remediation in later units. Because corrective instruction guarantees

that students have the learning prerequisites for subsequent units, initial instruction in later units

can proceed more rapidly, allowing teachers to cover just as much material as they would using

more traditional methods.

Re-testing cycles usually refers to taking parallel forms of exams. The parallel forms are

commonly called make-up exams and they often have the same number and type of questions as

on an exam but phrased differently and with different response choices. In mastery learning,

"make-up exams" are often open to all students who voluntarily wish to retake an exam to

improve their grades and are not something students take when they failed to attend or "missed"

an exam. Make-up exams should be as difficult, or more difficult, so any increased achievement

is less likely the product of "easier" tests.

Mastery learning uses criterion-referenced instead of norm referenced measurement to

grade student performance (Aviles, 2001; Bloom, Hastings & Madaus, 1971). Criterion
referenced measurement compares performance to a standard, whereas, norm-referenced

measurement (the normal curve) compares performance of other students. It may produce score

distributions that deviate from a normal curve because it is possible for all students to meet the

criterion (Lucas & Bernestein, 2015). It is consistent with a fundamental belief of mastery

learning that all students are capable of achieving higher levels with clear learning goals and, if

given enough time, feedback and correctives.

Related Studies

A consideration of the historical antecedents of any educational practice can undoubtedly

serve to enhance the awareness and understanding, which one brings to bear upon its genesis,

development, and implications for current practice.

Over the past few years, a mastery approach to teaching and learning has been

developing, and advocates of this approach assert that under appropriate learning conditions,

nearly all students can and will learn what the schools have to teach. The following studies are

presented to support the researcher’s proposition.

The study “Effects of Mastery Learning Approach on Secondary Schools on Students’

Physics Achievement” offers evidence that Mastery Learning Approach (MLA) can increase

achievement. The paper compared the achievement of students’ taught Physics through MLA

with that of students taught through Regular Teaching Methods (RTM). The researcher found

out that the students who were taught through the MLA teaching method achieved statistically

significantly higher scores in the Physics Achievement Test compared to those were taught

through the RTM. This implies that MLA teaching method is more effective in enhancing

students’ achievement. This was supported by the study conducted by Block (1971) which
showed that students with minimal prior knowledge of material had higher achievement when

taught MLA teaching method than those taught through regular teaching method.

The findings of the study at 0.05 α-level, showed a statistically significant difference in

scores even when the students had no prior knowledge on the topic to be taught when MLA was

used as compared to RTM, therefore concurs with the findings of previous research. Since

achievement is important in the student learning process, physics teachers should be encouraged

to use MLA in order to improve performance in physics (Wambagu & Changeiywo , 2008).

In the separate research made by Ashok (2005), the effect of Mastery learning strategies

on students' cognitive and affective development and rate of learning has been found to be

significant. He added that mastery learning methods also contribute in increasing the learners'

interest and aptitude for learning the subject than traditional approaches. The study also

indicates that mastery learning strategy can compensate learning deficiencies of culturally and

socially deprived children.

Shafie, Shahdanb, and Liew (2010) in their study “Mastery Learning Assessment Model

(MLAM) in Teaching and Learning Mathematics” also focused on the effects of mastery

learning. They examined the effectiveness of Mastery Learning Assessment Model (MLAM) in

teaching and learning mathematics at a private university, namely UNIRAZAK, Malaysia.

MLAM was based on repeating similar assessments through a mastery learning remodel from

previous researchers. In this study presented herein, a sample size of 30 was collected and

surveyed using continuous assessments and the findings showed that a positive correlation

(r=0.77) exists between the MLAM score and the final exam result. Based on the Teaching

Evaluation Results (TER), a majority of the students were also satisfied with this approach.
 Overmyer (2010) in his study also concluded that the effects of mastery learning are

evident not only in measures of student achievement but also show positive effects in students’

attitudes towards the subject and the instructional method. As Skinner stated in his Pac-man

metaphor, mastery learning can provide a new enthusiasm for students to be successful in

mathematics based on an intrinsic motivation to “get to the next level.” Likewise, mastery

learning relieves a student’s mathematics anxiety and develops their confidence when students

know they can retest (Kennedy, 1990). Students learn to appreciate the objectives-based mastery

design and become experts at mastering specific verifiable learning objectives.

The above-mentioned studies are supported by Hayes, Goldish, and Bailey (2009) in their

paper “Effectiveness of Mastery Learning in the ASSISTment Tutoring System”. The

researchers compared Kulik and Kulik meta-analysis in 1990 of 108 evaluations of mastery

learning programs. The results showed that mastery learning programs did help improve student

performance. They found that mastery learning could be adapted to a larger range of students

including those that learn at a slower pace than their fellows. They also found that the benefits

of mastery learning endured rather than being a short-term boost. They also found that low

aptitude students improved more drastically than high aptitude students. This is likely due to the

fact that high aptitude students had less room for improvement.

These findings are consistent with the study made by Miteel & Obaitan (2015). The result

implies that mastery learning teaching method is more effective and better in enhancing students’

cognitive learning outcome. This finding is also consistent with that of Bloom (1981) who found

in his study that students performed at least 80% or higher on a test with the application of

mastery learning principles. The result of this study showed that the mean score for the mastery

learning group was 78.2% which is consistent with Bloom’s findings. The result is also
consistent with Ajogbeje (2012), Majid and Zahra (2010), Olufunmilayo (2010), Patricia and

Johnson (2008), Ozedemi (2008), Kazu, Kazu and Ozedemir (2005), Adeyemi (2007),

Wachanga and Gamba (2004), Abadon (2002), and Olopade (2002) who found that mastery

learning teaching method improves students’ achievement better than the traditional teaching

method. Mastery learning accounted for the high cognitive learning outcome of the students in

mastery learning group.

In a separate way, Rana (2012) revealed in her study that the mastery learning models of

teaching were found more effective than the conventional method of teaching. The results were

consistent with the findings of Kulik, Kulik & Bangert-Drowns (1990), Laney (1999), Dutt &

Kumar (2002), Dillashaw & Okey (2006), Adeyemi, Wambugu & Changeiywo (2008) and

Damavandi & Kashani (2010). Mastery learning method caused to increase positive changes in

attitude of the weak students to chemistry learning.

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
 This chapter presents the research design, respondents of the study, research instrument,

scaling and quantification and data gathering procedure.

Research Design

This is a quantitative study using quasi-experimental, descriptive-comparative methods of

research.

Quasi-experimental research attempts to establish cause-effect relationships among the

variables. This type of design is very similar to true experiments, but with some key differences.

An independent variable is identified but not manipulated by the experimenter, and effects of the

independent variable on the dependent variable are measured. The researcher does not randomly

assign groups and must use ones that are naturally formed or pre-existing groups. Identified

control groups exposed to the treatment variable are studied and compared to groups who are

not. (source)

This study will also use descriptive-comparative design. Descriptive study is the most

commonly used method of investigation in describing the prevailing conditions of a certain

phenomenon. The goal of descriptive study is to offer the researcher profile or to describe

relevant aspects of the phenomena of interest from an individual, organization, and some other

perspective. It offers ideas for further probe and research and to help make certain simple

decisions (Trochim, 2006). On the other hand, comparative method of research will be used in

comparing the mean scores of the pre-test and post-test of the experimental and control group.

Respondents of the Study

 The total number of Grade 10 students enrolled in Oriental Mindoro National High

School is 1066 as of June 2016. The numbers of male and female students are 481 and 585

respectively. The respondents will be chosen using purposive sampling method. Usually, the

sample being investigated is quite small. The main goal of purposive sampling is to focus on

particular characteristics of a population that are of interest, which will best enable the researcher

to answer the research questions. Initially, the researcher used a Standardized IQ test which is the

Cambridge Self-Scoring IQ Test to measure the mental ability of the students to be chosen as

respondents. The results showed that the respondents of the groups below have the same IQ

which is below average.

BOYS GIRLS TOTAL

TOTAL 481 585 1066

Table 1: Total Population of Grade 10 Students in OMNHS

BOYS GIRLS TOTAL

G10-1 24 32 56

G10-2 17 39 56

TOTAL 56 56 112

Table 2: Number of Grade 10 Respondents

Research Instrument

Permission to use the standardized research instrument

The instruments to be used for data collection will be the standardized Summative Tests

in Mathematics (STM) for the pre-test and post-test. The STM will be a 34 item, 4-option

multiple choice test drawn from the concepts of the competencies of the subject matter.

Scaling and Quantification

In accordance to DepEd Order No. 8 series of 2015, Policy Guidelines on Classroom

Assessment for the K to 12 Basic Education Program is presented below.

Table 10: Descriptors, Grading Scale and Remarks

DESCRIPTOR GRADING SCALE REMARKS

Outstanding 90-100 Passed

Very Satisfactory 85-89 Passed

Satisfactory 80-84 Passed

Fairly Satisfactory 75-79 Passed

Did Not Meet Expectations Below 75 Failed

Data Gathering Procedures

For data gathering, the researcher will be guided by the procedures enumerated below.

A Letter of Request asking permission to conduct the study address to the Principal of

Oriental Mindoro National High School noted by the Mathematics department head will be

prepared.

After the permit was granted, the researcher will administer the pre-test for the two

sections.

After the administration of the test and all questions are answered, the researcher will

check the papers and record the scores in the columnar sheet.

After the pre-test, the teaching learning process will start. The experimental group will

be exposed to the use of mastery learning approach while the control group will be exposed to

the traditional teaching method. After a quarter, a post test will be administered to the two

groups. The scores will also be recorded and the difference between the scores in the pre-test

and post-test will be computed.

Plotting the raw data in the tables for analysis and interpretation will follow.

Statistical Treatment of Data

The data gathered in this study were statistically treated using descriptive statistics and

inferential statistics.
Formula of Descriptive Stat, The mean and the median are summary measures used to describe
the most "typical" value in a set of values.

Statisticians refer to the mean and median as measures of central tendency.

The Mean and the Median

The difference between the mean and median can be illustrated with an example. Suppose we
draw a sample of five women and measure their weights. They weigh 100 pounds, 100 pounds,
130 pounds, 140 pounds, and 150 pounds.

 To find the median, we arrange the observations in order from smallest to largest value. If there
is an odd number of observations, the median is the middle value. If there is an even number of
observations, the median is the average of the two middle values. Thus, in the sample of five
women, the median value would be 130 pounds; since 130 pounds is the middle weight.

 The mean of a sample or a population is computed by adding all of the observations and
dividing by the number of observations. Returning to the example of the five women, the mean
weight would equal (100 + 100 + 130 + 140 + 150)/5 = 620/5 = 124 pounds. In the general case,
the mean can be calculated, using one of the following equations:

Population mean = μ = ΣX / N     OR     Sample mean = x = Σx / n

where ΣX is the sum of all the population observations, N is the number of population
observations, Σx is the sum of all the sample observations, and n is the number of sample
observations.

When statisticians talk about the mean of a population, they use the Greek letter μ to refer to the
mean score. When they talk about the mean of a sample, statisticians use the symbol x to refer to
the mean score.

The Mean vs. the Median

As measures of central tendency, the mean and the median each have advantages and
disadvantages. Some pros and cons of each measure are summarized below.

 The median may be a better indicator of the most typical value if a set of scores has an outlier.
An outlier is an extreme value that differs greatly from other values.

 However, when the sample size is large and does not include outliers, the mean score usually
provides a better measure of central tendency.

To illustrate these points, consider the following example. Sup

Mean for Ungrouped Data

X =x x¿ ¿
1+¿ ¿¿
n

Mean for Grouped Data

X=
∑ fx
N

Frequency

and percentage

T-test for Independent variables

This will be used to measure the mean difference of the scores of the pre-test of the control and

experimental group as well as the mean difference of the scores of the post-test of the two

groups. Formula is shown below:

 X −Y

[ ( )( ) ][
2 2
(ΣX ) (Σ Y )
t = Σ X 2− + Σ Y 2−

]
N1 N2 1 1
. +
N 1 + N 2−2 N1 N2

where: ΣX = sum of the scores of the control group

Σ Y = sum of scores of the experimental group

X 1 = mean scores of the control group

X 2 = mean scores of the experimental group

N1 = total number of respondents in the control group

N2 = total number of respondents in the experimental group

T-test for Dependent variables

This will be used to measure the difference of the scores of the pre-test and post-test of the

control group as well as of the experimental group. Formula is shown below:

√
2
( ED )
t= ΣD −
2
n
n−(n−1)

where: D = mean difference

D2 = square of difference

n = sample size
 References

Books
Anderson, J. R. (2000). Learning and memory: An integrated approach second edition. New

York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Anonymous, (1993). The Original Cambridge Self-Scoring IQ Test. Magni Group Incorporated

Baum, W. M. (2005). Understanding Behaviorism: Behavior, Culture and Evolution. Malden,

MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Clark, L. R. (2000). Developing Mastery Learning Strategies. Retrieved from:

http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/faculty/clark/module9/content/topic1.htm

Davis, D., & Sorrell, J. (1995), Mastery learning in public schools. Educational Psychology

Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved from

http://teach.valdosta.edu/whuitt/files/mastlear.html

Guskey, T. R. (1997). Implementing Mastery Learning. 2nd ed. Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth/Cengage Learning. 55-56.

Krathwohl, D.R.(2002). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing. New York:

Addison Wesley Longman Inc.

Lucas, S. G. and Bernestein, D. A. (2015). Teaching Psychology A step by step guide.

Psychology Press. New York.

U.S. Congress (2001). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved

from

https://www2.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/guide/guide.pdf)
Journals, Periodicals and Internet Resources

Abadon GN (2002). New strategies for optimizing learning outcomes in Mathematics. In

Ayodele S. O. (ed) Teaching strategies for Nigerian secondary school. Ibadan: Power

house Press & Publication.

Abakpa BO, Iji CO (2011). Effect of Mastery Learning Approach on Senior Secondary School

Students Achievements in Geometry. J. Sci. Teach. Assoc. Niger. 46(1), 165-176.

Retrieved from

http://stanonline.org/journal/pdf/

Aderemi, D. O. (2006). Effect of mastery learning approach on students’ achievement in

mathematics achievement test. Unpublished M. Ed Thesis. University of Jos. Retrieved

from http://jeteraps.scholarlinkresearch.com/articles/Enhancing%20Mathematics.pdf

Adeyemi, B. A. (2007). Learning social studies through mastery approach. Educational

Research and Review, 2(4). Retrieved from http://www.academicjournals.org

Adeyemo, S. A. & Babajide, V. F. (2014). Effects of Mastery Learning Approach on Students’

Achievement in Physics. International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research,

5(2).

Ajogbeje, O. J. (2012). Path-analytic model and the effect of some teaching strategies on

variables affecting achievement in junior secondary school mathematics in Ondo State.

Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Ekiti State University, Ado – Ekiti, Nigeria

Akinsola, M. K. (2007). Mastery learning, cooperative mastery learning strategies and student’

achievement in integrated science. Retrieved from

http/www.ipn.unikiel. deprojket/ esenal /book/1132

Andaya, O. J. (2014). Factors that affect Mathematics Achievement of Students of Philippine

Normal University-Isabela Campus. Journal of Arts, Science and Commerce, 5(4), 83-91.

Retrieved from

http://www.researchersworld.com/vol5/issue4/Paper_09.pdf

Ashok, K.K. (2005). Effectiveness of Mastery Learning Strategy and Inquiry Training Model on

Pupil’s Achievement in Science. Indian Educational Review, 41(1).

Aviles, C.B. (2001). A study of mastery learning versus non-mastery learning instruction in an

undergraduate social work policy class. Retrieved from

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED449413.pdf

Awofala, Adeneye O. A. & Nneji,L. M. (2012). Effect of Framing Team assisted Individualized

Instructional strategies on Students’ Achievement in mathematics.

Awotunde,P. O. & Bot, T. D. (2003). Using mastery learning approach to improve performance

of students in geometry in the secondary school, Journal of Educational Studies.

University of Jos, 7(1), 2-14. Retrieved from

http://stanonline.org/journal/pdf/JSTAN-Abakpa&Iji.pdf

Barrientos, K. D. (2015). Factors Affecting Performance in Science of Fourth year students in

the National Achievement Test.

Block, J. H. (Ed.). (1971). Mastery learning: Theory and practice. New York: Holt, Rinehart &

Winston.

Block, J. H., & Anderson, L. W. (1975). Mastery learning in classroom instruction. New York:

MacMillan.

Bloom, B., S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Cognitive domain. NY: Longman.
Bloom, B., S, Hastings, J., & Madaus, G., F (Eds.). (1971). Handbook on formative and

summative evaluation of student learning. NY: McGraw-Hill.

Butler, R. (2007). Teachers' achievement goal orientations and associations with teachers' help

seeking: Examination of a novel approach to teacher motivation. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 99(2), 241–252.

Changeiywo, J. M., et. al. (2010), Investigations of Students’ Motivation Towards Learning

Secondary School Physics through Mastery Learning Approach.

Cooperman, R. (2012). Measuring Learner Success in a Mastery Learning Program. Retrieved

from http://www.trainingmag.com/content/measuring-learner-success-mastery-learning-

program

Damavandi, M. E. & Kashani, Z. H. (2010) Effect of mastery learning method on performance

and attitude of the weak students in chemistry. Journal of Social and Behavioural

Sciences, 5, 1574-1579.

DepEd slates National Achievement Test in March’- The Philippine Star, Updated January 07,

2010.

Diegelman-‐Parente, A. (2011). The use of mastery learning with competency-‐based

grading in an organic chemistry course. Journal of College Science Teaching. 40(5), 50-

58. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/openview/b885b04ae570beb0d4a9af8f8ab073f4/1.pdf?pq-

origsite=gscholar

Dillashaw, F. G. & Okey, J. R. (2006). Effect of modified mastery learning strategy on

achievement, attitudes and on-task behaviour of high school chemistry students. Journal

of Research in Science Teaching, 20(3), 203-211.

Dursan, S. &Dede, Y. (2004). The Factors Affecting Students Success in Mathematics:

Mathematics Teachers Perspective. Journal of Gazi Education Faculty 24(2), 217-230.

Dutt, S. & Kumar, D. (2002) Mastery learning strategies-their effectiveness on achievement in

economics in relation to cognitive style. Indian Educational Review, 45(3), 49-51.

Gamba, L. O. (2004), Effect of mastery learning on achievement in Chemistry, Journal of

Research in Teaching and Learning, 1(1).

Ganal, N. N. & Guiab, M. R. (2014). Problems And Difficulties Encountered By Students

Towards Mastering Learning Competencies In Mathematics. International Refereed

Research Journal, 5(4), 25-37.

Guskey, T.R. (2005). Formative classroom assessment and Benjamin S. Bloom: theory, research

and implications. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational

Research Association, Montreal, Canada.

Guskey, T. R. (2007). Closing achievement gaps: Revisiting Benjamin S. Bloom’s “Learning for

Mastery.” Journal of Advanced Academics, 19(1), 8-31. Retrieved from:

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?

_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ786608&ERICExtSearch_SearchTy

pe_0=no&accno=EJ786608

Guskey, T. R. (2009). Mastery Learning in 21st Century Education: CA: Sage Publications.

Hayes, A., Goldish, S. & Bailey, S. (2009). Effectiveness of Mastery Learning in the

ASSISTment Tutoring System. Retrieved from

http://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project

05050101110/unrestricted/ASSISTmentsmasterylearning.pdf
Hutcheson, P. J. (2015). The Effect of the Mastery Learning Approach on Student Motivation in

Middle Level Science, School of Education Student Capstones and Dissertations. Paper

212. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.hamline.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?

article=1211&context=hse_all

Ihendinihu, U. I. (2013). Enhancing Mathematics Achievement of Secondary School Students

Using Mastery Learning Approach. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research

and Policy Studies, 4(6): 848-854. Retrieved from

http://jeteraps.scholarlinkresearch.com/articles/Enhancing%20Mathematics.pdf

Iji, C. O. (2005). Effect of logo and basic Programming on the Achievement and Retention in

Geometry of Junior Secondary School Students. Journal of Mathematical Association of

Nigeria

Ihendinihu, U.E. (2008). Effects of Guided Scoring Instructional Strategy on the performance of

secondary school students in mathematics in Abia state. Unpublished M.ED Dissertation

submitted to the faculty of education, Abia- state University Uturu

Ironsmith, M., & Eppler, M. A. (2007). Faculty forum: Mastery learning benefits low-aptitude

students. Teaching of Psychology, 34(1), 28-31. Retrieved from

http://www.nus.edu.sg/teachingacademy/wp

content/uploads/2013/07/v2n4p206_Kang.pdf

Kazu, I. Y, Kazu, H., & Ozdemir, O. (2005). The Effects of Mastery Learning Model on the

Success of the Students Who Attended “Usage of Basic Information Technologies”

Course. Edu. Technol Soc, 8 (4): 233-243. Retrieved from

http://www.ifets.info/journals/8_4/21.pdf
Kulik, C., Kulik, J. & Bangert-Drowns, R. L. (1990) Effectiveness of mastery learning programs:

A meta- analysis. Review of Educational Research. Journal of All India Association for

Educational Research, 60(2), 265-306.

Laney, J. D. (1999). A sample lesson in economics for primary students: how cooperative and

mastery learning methods can enhance social studies learning. Journal of Social Studies

90(4), 152-158.

Levine, D. (1985). Improving student achievement through mastery learning programs. San

Francisco: JosseyBass

Lezotte, L. (2002). “Learning for all”. Journal for Effective Schools, 1(1), 7-12.

Mahon, K. (2012). Mastery Learning and Gaming in Education: DragonBox. Retrieved from

http://karenmahon.com/2012/06/20/mastery-learning-and-gaming-in-education-

dragonbox/

Majid, E.D and Zahra, S. K. (2010). Effect of mastery learning method on performance

and attitude of weak students in chemistry. Iran: Elsevier Ltd.  Retrieved from

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042810017015

Majidat, L. O. (2002). Effects of three instructional strategies on cognitive learning

outcomes of students in mathematics. An unpublished M.Ed Thesis. University of

Ibadan

Mangaliman, R.A. (2000). Factors Affecting Students’ Failures in Mathematics. Unpublished

Thesis, Saint Louis University, Baguio City, Philippines.

Mitee1, T. & Obaitan, G. (2015). Effect of Mastery Learning on Senior Secondary School

Students’ Cognitive Learning Outcome in Quantitative Chemistry, Journal of Education

and Practice , 6(5).

Motamedi,V. & Sumrall, W. J. (2000). Mastery learning and contemporary issues in education.

Action in Teacher Education, 22 (1), 22-32.

Ogan, S. S. (2012). Effect of mastery learning on Senior secondary school achievement in

Geography. An unpublished M.Ed Thesis. University of Ibadan. Retrieved from

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1083639.pdf

Ogba, O. (2000). Interactive effects of mastery and locus of control on cognitive learning

outcomes of junior secondary school mathematics. An unpublished M.Ed Thesis.

University of Ibadan. Retrieved from

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1083639.pdf

Olopade, O. A. (2002). The comparative effect of mastery learning and enhanced mastery

learning strategies on students’ achievement in mathematics. An unpublished M.Ed

Thesis. University of Ibadan

Olufunmilayo, I. O. (2010). Enhanced mastery learning strategy on achievement and self-

concept in senior secondary school chemistry. Humanity and Social Sciences Journal.

5.1:19-24

Olunloye, O(2010). Mass Failure in Mathematics: a National Disaster. Tribune of 07/02/2010.

Retrieved from

http/www.tribune.com.

Overmyer, G. R. (2010), History and Effectiveness of Mastery Learning in Mathematics.

Retrieved from
 http:api.ning.com/files/

qfafTtfmGD4DQQVPavHjslHPF4IZdoMONro8rJxdaHIiCnLaFUR97yXqfRAuprYzSuid

tLCOtlyPNfK2dwhNK1nc77qOAv9/HistoryofMasteryLearning.pdf

Patricia, W. W & Johnson M. C. (2008). Effects of Mastery Learning Approach on Secondary

School Students’ Physics Achievement. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science &

Technology Education, 4.3:293-302

Rana, R. M. (2012). Effectiveness of Bloom’s Mastery Learning Model on the Achievement in

Economics with respect to Attitude towards Economics. Journal of All India Association

for Educational Research , 24(1).

Rayos, Jasmine G. (2012). Factors Affecting Students’ Performance in National Achievement

Test

Samuel, O.S. (2007). Effects of personalized system of instruction on students’ Academic

Achievement in Chemistry. Pakistan journal of social science, 4 (1), 132-136.

Shafie N., Shahdan, T. N., & Liew, M. S. (2010). Mastery Learning Assessment Model (MLAM)

in Teaching and Learning Mathematics. International Conference on Mathematics

Education Research 2010.

Silver, H. F., Hanson, J. R., Strong, R. W., & Schwartz, P. B. (2003). Teaching styles &

strategies. Ho-Ho-Kus, NJ: The Thoughtful Education Press.

Tomilson, C. (2003). "Fulfilling the promise of the differentiated classrooms: Strategies and

tools for responsive teaching". Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and

Curriculum Development.
Uhumuavbi, P.O. & Umoru, G.E. (2005). Relationship Between Interest in Mathematics and

Science Among Polytechnic Students - A Case Study of Auchi Polytechnic. Nigerian

Journal of Professional Teacher, 1 (1), 71-76.

Wachanga, S. W. & Gamba, P. P. (2004) Effects of mastery learning approach on secondary

school students’ achievement in chemistry in Nakuru District Kenya. Egerton Journal of

Humanities Social Sciences and Education 5, 2, 221-235. Retrieved from

http://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/CMR/article/viewFile/16263/16687

Wambagu, P. W. & Changeiywo, J. M. (2007). Effects of Mastery Learning Approach on

Secondary School Students’ Physics Achievement . Eurasia Journal of Mathematics,

Science & Technology Education, 2008, 4(3), 293-302.

West African Examination Council (2010). Chief Examiner’s Reports. May/June SSCE, Lagos:

WAEC Publication.

Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (2005). "Understanding by design (2nd ed).". Alexandria, VA:

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Wong, K. (2002). A basic introduction to mastery learning. The Newsletter Learning And

Teaching Support, 2 (3).

Wong, B. S., & Kang, L. (2012). Mastery learning in the context of university education. Journal

of the NUS Teaching Academy, 2(4), 206-222.

Yara, P.O. and Otieno, K.O. (2010). Teaching/ learning Resources and Academic Performance

in Mathematics in Secondary schools in Bondo District of Kenya. Asian Social Science,

6(12), 126-132.

Yildiran,, G. & Aydin, E.(2005). The effect of mastery learning and cooperative, competitive and

individualistic learning environment organization on achievement and attitudes in

 mathematics. Journal of the Korean of Mathematics Education Series. 9(1), 5572.

Retrieved from

htpp/www.sciencedirect.com

Zimmerman, B. J., & Dibenedetto, M. K. (2008). Mastery learning and assessment: Implications

for students and teachers in an era of high-stakes testing. Psychology in the Schools,

45(3), 206-216.