A COMPARISON OF A GROUP-PACED MASTERY LEARNING MODEL WITH AN INDIVIDUALLY PROGRAMMED MASTERY LEARNING MODEL IN THE TEACHING OF READING TO HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS UNDER THE EGIS OF CHAPTER I.

摘要

The question which this study attempted to answer was "Do Chapter I high school students using a group paced Mastery Learning model show greater growth in reading than those using an individually paced Mastery Learning model?" In order to find out which was more effective, the investigator/instructor's five classes were divided into two treatment groups, one of which received individually paced instruction and the other group paced. All students were given the reading component of the TABE (Test of Adult Basic Education). The comprehensive reading level was used to make the assignment of classes for Treatment Group I or Treatment Group II so as to have the starting reading grade levels as closely equivalent as possible.;The first three of the hypotheses tested dealt with differences in reading achievement between the two treatment groups, interaction between treatment and reading level, and variability of reading achievement scores as measured by the TABE. The fourth hypothesis was concerned with subskill mastery as measured by the diagnostic instrument and the fifth with the affective characteristics of the two groups. Except for the subskill area of Main Ideas (in which there was a significant interaction between treatment and group), none of the differences were statistically significant. Therefore, the null hypotheses were accepted.;Neither model brought the hoped for growth. In most areas the results were almost indistinguishable from one treatment to the other. Research is still needed to find a more effective method for reaching this population.;All students were also given a diagnostic test (to help determine the areas of instruction either for the group or for individuals) and an attitude inventory to get a picture of the students' affective qualities. The twenty-five students in Treatment Group I were given instruction based on the individually paced model of Mastery Learning and the thirty-six students in Treatment Group II were instructed using the group paced model of Mastery Learning instruction. The students within each treatment group were subdivided into reading level groups. The actual instructional time spent in the study (excluding the pre- and post-testing) was thirteen weeks, or approximately three months.