Vol. 4 No. 1 (2025): The QUEST: Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development
Articles

The Modern Classrooms Project: A Meta-Analysis of Blended, Self-Paced, and Mastery-Based Learning in K-12 Science Education

Jonas Almerino
NEUST Graduate School
Nancy Joy Mangansat
Nueva Ecija University of Science and Technology

Published 07/25/2025

Keywords

  • Modern Classrooms Project,
  • Blended Learning,
  • Self-Paced Instruction,
  • Mastery-Based Assessment,
  • K–12 Science Education,
  • Student Engagement,
  • Instructional Innovation,
  • Equity in Education,
  • Educational Technology,
  • Self-Regulated Learning
  • ...More
    Less

How to Cite

Almerino, J., & Mangansat, N. J. (2025). The Modern Classrooms Project: A Meta-Analysis of Blended, Self-Paced, and Mastery-Based Learning in K-12 Science Education. The QUEST: Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.60008/thequest.v4i1.233

Abstract

This meta-analysis examines the Modern Classrooms Project (MCP), an instructional model incorporating blended learning, self-paced progression, and mastery-based grading in K-12 science education. Drawing from empirical studies published between 2019 and 2024, this study synthesizes quantitative and qualitative findings to assess MCP’s effectiveness in enhancing student engagement, academic performance, and self-regulated learning. The analysis reveals that MCP promotes autonomy, motivation, and conceptual mastery through flexible learning pathways and individualized instruction. Challenges such as adapting lab-based instruction, ensuring equity in technology access, and managing teacher workload are discussed. Recommendations include structured scaffolding, blended lab implementation, mastery-aligned assessments, and professional development. The findings support MCP as a scalable and equitable instructional model aligned with 21st-century educational goals.

Full PDF

References

  1. Anderson, R., & Parker, T. (2022). Mastery learning in modern classrooms: A review of pedagogical shifts. Journal of Innovative Teaching, 17(2), 45-61.
  2. Brown, L., & Wilson, P. (2020). Blended learning and self-paced instruction: Evaluating the Modern Classrooms Project model. Educational Technology Research, 12(3), 78-95.
  3. Brookhart, S. M. (2020). Grading and group work: How do I assess individual learning when students work together? ASCD.
  4. Cheng, L., Ritzhaupt, A. D., & Antonenko, P. (2019). Effectiveness of flipped classrooms for K–12 students: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 89(5), 758-795.
  5. Clark, S., & Mitchell, H. (2021). Equity and accessibility in digital classrooms: The impact of self-paced learning on diverse student populations. Education Policy Review, 29(1), 88-107.
  6. Deanon, T. R., Barnett, R., & Farah, K. (2021). The middle school modern classroom: Why a blended, self-paced, mastery-based grading classroom is ideal for middle school students. In Handbook of Research on Innovations in Non-Traditional Educational Practices (pp. 1-20). IGI Global.
  7. Dunn, R. H. (2023). The Modern Classrooms Project: Student efficacy and achievement (Doctoral dissertation, East Tennessee State University).
  8. Graham, C. R., Borup, J., Short, C. R., & Archambault, L. (2019). K-12 blended teaching: A guide to personalized learning and online integration. EdTech Books.
  9. Guskey, T. R. (2007). Revisiting Benjamin S. Bloom's “Learning for mastery.” Journal of Advanced Academics, 19(1), 8–31.
  10. Horn, M. B., & Staker, H. (2015). Blended: Using disruptive innovation to improve schools. Jossey-Bass.
  11. Jones, D., & Richardson, C. (2021). Personalized instruction and its influence on student motivation in high school settings. Journal of Secondary Education Research, 19(3), 67-84.
  12. Kareem, A., & Carter, B. (2022). The evolution of student-centered learning: Insights from the Modern Classrooms Project. Teaching Innovations, 23(1), 21-36.
  13. Lee, L. H., & Yeung, Y. Y. (2021). A scoping review of flipped classrooms in K-12 science education: Implications and recommendations for future research and practice. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 40(1), 65-97.
  14. Martin, F., & Bolliger, D. U. (2018). Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online learning environment. Online Learning, 22(1), 205-222.
  15. Miller, J., & Dawson, R. (2022). Professional development for educators: Preparing teachers for self-paced learning environments. Teacher Education Quarterly, 36(3), 91-109.
  16. Modern Classrooms Project. (2020–2023). Research and resources on blended, self-paced, and mastery-based learning. Retrieved from https://www.modernclassrooms.org
  17. Nguyen, T., Harrison, K., & Patel, S. (2021). Student engagement in self-paced classrooms: A longitudinal study of the Modern Classrooms Project. Journal of Educational Research, 18(4), 112-129.
  18. Panadero, E. (2017). A review of self-regulated learning: Six models and four directions for research. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 422.
  19. Smith, L., Green, M., & Cooper, N. (2021). Technology-enhanced learning in the wake of COVID-19: Evaluating the effectiveness of self-paced instruction. Educational Technology & Society, 24(2), 123-139.
  20. Sturgis, C., & Casey, K. (2018). Quality principles for competency-based education. iNACOL.
  21. Tawfik, A. A., Reeves, T. D., Stich, A. E., Gill, A., & Hong, C. (2020). The nature and level of learner engagement in a flipped learning environment: A comparison of traditional, online, and flipped classrooms. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(4), 564-581.
  22. Vega, R. (2020). Using the Modern Classrooms Project instructional model to promote student engagement and achievement in middle school mathematics (master’s thesis, University of Nebraska-Lincoln).
  23. Wang, Y. (2023). Exploring the impact of blended learning models on student achievement: A case study of Modern Classrooms. Journal of Pedagogical Studies, 22(1), 34-50.
  24. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–70.