The Promise of Mastery-Based Testing for Motivating and Scaffolding Self-Regulated Learning in Gateway STEM Courses

• In Event: Reducing Psychological Barriers to Effective Self-Regulated Learning in STEM

Abstract

Background, Aims, & Methods
Decades of research show that tests, beyond assessing student knowledge, are powerful tools for promoting learning (11–13). However, high-stakes tests can also cause stress and disengagement (14–16). To encourage and motivate students, we implemented a mastery-based testing system in a large- enrollment general chemistry course (N = 234). This system allowed students to take three versions of each unit test, studying digital course resources in between to increase their mastery. By providing repeated, lower-stakes opportunities to gauge knowledge, address weaknesses, and retake tests to improve performance, we reasoned that mastery-based testing could offer a powerful incentive to engage with practice materials over time without the fear of failure. There are multiple pathways by which mastery-based testing might improve learning. First, by enabling repeated, spaced practice through testing itself, mastery-based tests could directly support encoding, memory, and generalization. Second, by providing a motivating and structured framework, mastery-based systems may indirectly promote spaced retrieval by facilitating effective self-regulated learning. This structure could guide students’ metacognition and encourage them to plan targeted, distributed study sessions. Figure 2 summarizes the process of self-regulated learning, often described as a cycle of reflection, planning, and performance, and outlines the hypothesized benefits of mastery-based testing.
Results
Students used the mastery testing system when they struggled on unit tests: a one standard-deviation decrease in first-attempt scores was associated with over a threefold increase in the odds of repeating a test, p < .001. And when students chose to repeat tests, they were much more likely to return to the corresponding unit in their online course resources to complete additional, distributed practice. Each repeated test attempt was associated with a 10% increase in total studying, p < .001.
This additional practice was linked to improved performance. Completing 100 more practice problems predicted a 5.1-point increase in test scores between attempts one and two (p = .001; Figure 3A), and a 4.9-point increase between attempts two and three (p = .025; Figure 3B). Use of mastery-based testing also predicted final exam performance.
Repeating a single unit test was associated with a 0.87-point increase in final exam scores, controlling for average initial performance (p = .029). Given that students averaged six repeated attempts, use of the system was associated with a five-point gain on the final exam. Among first-generation college students, the benefit was even larger: an 11-point increase (p = .006). Critically, engagement with digital learning materials mediated these performance gains (Figure 4), suggesting the benefits of mastery-based testing were not solely due to test repetition.
Significance
The findings indicate that mastery-based testing can enhance performance in introductory STEM courses by motivating and structuring students’ self-regulated learning—helping them invest more time in effective, distributed study strategies.

Authors

• Michael W. Asher, Carnegie Mellon University

• Joshua Hartman, University of California, Riverside

• Mark Blaser, Shasta College

• Jack Eichler, University of California - Riverside

• Paulo Carvalho, Carnegie Mellon University