No abstract

No abstract

This study explored the likelihood that current inconsistencies in findings relating to the programming variables of step size (SS), response mode (RM) and knowledge of results (KR) might stem from the tendency of past research to investigate these variables in isolation from each other. Such an approach fails to make provision for the observation of possible interactions. Accordingly, four levels of KR (O, 50% variable-ratio, 100%, 100% plus incentive), three levels of RM (overt, covert, covert plus random overt) and two levels of SS (large, small) were incorporated into a factorial design. Three intact classrooms were randomly assigned to each of the twenty-four treatment conditions. A linear program with content structured to teach certain concepts pertaining to earth-sun relationships served as the learning task. The treatment combinations were evaluated for their effects upon immediate learning and delayed retention. Immediate learning was maximized by treatments that coupled a small step program with an overt response mode. KR was generally not an important contributor to immediate learning. Analysis of immediate learning data also revealed significant SS×RM and SS×KR interactions. There were no differences, however, among treatments in terms of facilitating delayed retention of content. It was concluded that a reappraisal is required of the pivotal assumption that programmed instruction's effectiveness derives from the explicit provision of KR.

The relationships between cognitive style, conceptual tempo and problem solving strategies of 81 fifth-grade students were examined. While cognitive style was not found to be related to strategies employed during problem solving, conceptual tempo influenced both time spent and quantity and quality of questions asked. Effectiveness of programmed instruction in developing analytic and reflective problem solving abilities was also investigated. This form of training was effective in increasing time spent on the four criterion problems. Improvement was also seen in the quantity and quality of questions asked. Aptitude by treatment interactions indicated that modification of the program in the direction of more externally controlled pacing may be required for the very non-analytic and impulsive child.Over the past five years a program of investigation has been undertaken by the second author within a local school system to accomplish two central goals. The first of these is the identification of those student characteristics associated with successful problem solving behavior. The second is the development of curriculum materials and instructional strategies which could be used by the regular classroom teacher to foster these productive behaviors. Concordant with these goals, the present study examined the relationships between both cognitive This research was conducted as partial fulfillment of an M.A. degree in Educational Psychology by the first author and as part of a larger research project by the second author at the University of British Columbia. The authors wish to express their appreciation to Dr. Robert Conry for advice during the data analysis, and to the administrators, teachers and pupils of the Chilliwack School System whose continued cooperation and interest made this research possible.

252 fifth-grade students, categorised into anxiety-ability levels, were exposed to one of three forms of pre-program experience in an attempt to manipulate achievement motivation: (a) a pre-test followed by a satisfactory report, (b) a pre-test followed by no report, and (c) a pre-test on material other than that covered by the program. After the pre-program experience students completed either a large or small step (SS) version of an English money program. Using four criteria (immediate post-test, delayed post-test, time, and program errors) ability was significant for all but time (p<0·01), anxiety was significant only for errors and only on the SS program (p<005), and the Treatment X Anxiety interaction was significant for the delayed post-test on the SS program (p<0·01). This interaction was such that high-anxious students performed better, without a pre-test while low-anxious students did better with a pre-test. Discussion centred on the explanation of this interaction and why the SS program produced more differentiation than the large step.