Low Tech/High Touch Criterion-Based Learning

Abstract

92 students completed a criterion-based course in general psychology in which they spent 75% of class time teaching one another in small, permanently assigned groups using instructional objectives prepared by the instructor. Testing required 90% correct to avoid an alternative test (Form 2) at the next class. All took a standardized test for seniors majoring in psychology. Course grade was significantly correlated with scores on the standardized test. Students with grades of A achieved the 39th percentile for seniors after one semester of general psychology. Results are discussed in terms of the advantages of using small interpersonal groups in conjunction with instructional objectives to produce learning in general psychology to a high, preset criterion.

Who Learns More? Achievement Scores following Web-Based versus Classroom Instruction in Psychology Courses

“…Validity of the psychology ACAT as a measure of basic psychology knowledge has been established from the results of several studies (e.g. Causey, Fleming and Golden, 1996;Cone, 1988;Fleming and Golden, 1997;Golden, 1988Golden, , 1997Markus, Mukina and Golden, 1998).…”

The effectiveness of peer tutoring in further and higher education: A typology and review of the literature

“…The literature search revealed 18 studies of note (Bobko 1984, Meredith and Schmitz 1986, Cone 1988, Moust, De Voider and Nuy 1989, Button, Sims and White 1990, House and Wohlt 1990, Lidren, Meier and Brigham 1991, Longuevan and Shoemaker 1991, Moust and Schmidt 1992, 1994b, Johansen, Martenson and Bircher 1992, Arneman and Prosser 1993, Johnston 1993, American River College 1993, McDonnell 1994, Moody and McCrae 1994, Mallatrat 1994and Schmidt, Arend, Kokx and Boon 1994 Many of these gathered only subjective feedback outcome data. This is where upper year undergraduates (or post-graduates) act as tutors to lower year undergraduates, each tutor dealing with a small group of tutees simultaneously.…”

“…Course grades did not show a significant improvement over previous years, but previous groups may not have been comparable. A mixed method project reported by Cone (1988) involved rotating recitation and testing between same-year peers with coaching and testing by cross-year peer teaching assistants. Meredith and Schmitz (1986) reported a study involving many subjective ratings, and although some favoured peer tutoring compared to faculty tutoring, others indicated the opposite, and a great many were not significantly different.…”