The effects of step size, response mode and knowledge of results upon achievement in programmed instruction.

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.

Feedback Types in Programmed Instruction: A Systematic Review

“…of those, five showed KCR to be more effective than no feedback (anderson et al, 1971, Exp. i & ii;Clariana, Ross, & morrison, 1991;Grant, mcavoy, & Keenan, 1982;Roper, 1977), five found no significant difference (anderson et al, 1972;Gaynor, 1981;Gilman, 1969;morrison, Ross, Gopalakrishnan, & Casey, 1995;Pysh, Blank, & lambert, 1969), and one found no feedback to be superior to KCR (Pridemore & Klein, 1995). The other, moore and smith (1964), found that KCR via teaching machine produced better within-program performance than KR and no feedback with construction-response materials, but not with multiple-choice materials.…”

“…moore and smith (1964) found that KR plus 1¢ per correct response produced better within-session performance than KR, KCR via teaching machine, and no feedback with multiple-choice materials, but not with construction-response materials. Pysh et al (1969) found no advantage of KCR with a self-tallied point per correct response over KCR or no feedback, but it was not clear what, if any, value the points had. Thorkildsen and Reid (1989) found no difference between conditions in which 2nd to 4th-grade students were presented with "correct" and either a graphic (e.g., smiley face) or a video segment following correct responding and a condition in which they only received "correct," when incorrect responses were followed by a short buzz in all conditions.…”