Over a decade ago, I became intrigued by the idea of using a mastery approach to learning in accounting classes. It inspired me to convert my junior-level cost-accounting course to a mastery-based model.
This was a radical change. Traditional teaching methods emphasize covering material within a set time and measuring what students know. The mastery model emphasizes providing students time to master the material they are learning. For the cost-accounting course, my goal was for students to earn 100% scores on everything they did.
Ideally, students should have as much time as they need to reach mastery on all topics, but I teach at a traditional university — when the semester is over, the class is over. So, I decided to arrange the course material into three modules. If students mastered everything in the first module, which contained material that was crucial for students to know, they would earn a C in the class. The second module contained more advanced concepts; if students mastered everything in both the first and second modules, they would earn a B. The third module contained concepts that were even more advanced or that weren't always covered in traditional cost-accounting courses; if students mastered everything in all three modules, then they would earn an A.
Adopting this kind of structure required a shift in thinking — if students must earn 100% on everything they do, they need multiple chances to demonstrate mastery. Assessments of learning needed to be short, so they would be repeatable. Also, every student learns differently and thus reaches mastery at their own pace, so traditional classroom lectures wouldn't work.
So, I shifted from six tests a semester to 30 individual assessments — short enough to allow repeating multiple times if necessary. And it wouldn't do to use the same problem with different numbers when students repeated an assessment, because true mastery requires students to apply concepts across different situations. So, I developed different versions of each assessment, giving students different scenarios on each retake.
I also shifted from in-class lectures to a blended instruction model. I made short, engaging lecture videos for students to watch online, and I converted class time to workshop and assessment sessions. During twice-weekly workshops, students work on course material in the classroom at their own pace, and I answer questions on a one-on-one basis. During workshop time, students also complete in-class group projects, which they sign up for when they are ready. The third class each week is a time when students can take any assessments that they are ready for, under proctored conditions.
In addition to assessments and group projects, students also complete individual spreadsheet projects designed to test their ability to build user-friendly, formula-driven spreadsheets. All three deliverables in the class — assessments, group projects, and spreadsheet projects — follow mastery principles. Students must score 100% on each assessment to successfully complete it, with retakes allowed until they reach mastery. On group projects, I check each group's answers and give feedback in class. The groups then make corrections based on that feedback until they reach mastery. Spreadsheet projects must conform to best practices; until they reach that standard, I provide individual video feedback using the screen-casting tool ScreenPal, showing students the steps they need to take to successfully complete the project.
This mastery-based course took a lot of work to develop, and, at first, it took a lot of work to implement as well. However, from my perspective, all that work has been worthwhile. My students have been more satisfied with the course, have taken greater pride in their learning, and have felt more accountable for their outcomes. No longer do I receive emails at the end of the semester asking if I'll raise a grade, because the students know exactly what they needed to do to earn that grade. If they didn't do it, they own the result.
In addition, my own satisfaction has increased by teaching the course this way. I've had more individual student contact, which has allowed me to better understand students' learning processes. I've learned the growth mindset is absolutely correct — every student can learn, given the time and attention they require for their own process. I've earned 10% higher student ratings, and outcomes assessment measures from this course have been off the charts.
I'm not expecting every educator who reads this article to convert their courses to a mastery model. However, a whole-course approach is not necessary to start applying mastery principles. Just choose one or two assignments or projects and make them mastery-based. On a project, for example, provide feedback after an initial submission and allow a resubmission based on that feedback. On an exam or quiz, give students a relearning log — for each question they get wrong, have students explain why the answer was wrong, what the correct answer is, and how they will change their study habits to avoid similar mistakes in the future.
It doesn't take much to give students a chance to keep their learning going. And, eventually, all accounting educators may need to shift their thinking in this way if we want to adapt to whatever new models of education and licensure our profession deems appropriate in the future.
— Christine A. Denison, CPA (inactive), CMA, Ph.D., is an associate professor who holds the Roger P. Murphy Professorship in Accounting in the Ivy College of Business at Iowa State University and is director of Instructor Development for the Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching at Iowa State.