Search

This study examined the effects of assigning high school students to a computer-delivered geometry program that either matched or did not match their preferred amount of instruction as measured by a preprogram questionnaire. Students could adjust their program length by adding screens in a lean version of the program or by bypassing them in a full version. Matching students with their preferred program length did not produce improved posttest achievement and was particularly ineffective with students who preferred a low amount of instruction. The full version of the program was somewhat more effective than the lean version, primarily because of the better performance of low-preference students in the full version (mismatched) than in the lean one (matched).

Seventy-six AFROTC Cadets studied a revised version of the text, The Military Justice System, for four 50-minute class periods distributed over 2 weeks. Unit-mastery tests of about 12 multiple-choice items each were administered at 11 points throughout the text. Half of the subjects (Cadets) received no knowledge of the correctness of their responses on the unit-mastery test. The other half of the subjects used chemically treated answer sheets which immediately indicated whether or not the subject's answer was correct. A 100-item multiple-choice test over the text was administered to all subjects 2 days after the final instruction period. All subjects had been informed of the final test. Half of the subjects in each of the above groups had been assured payment of $2.50 for participation in the study. Each student in the other half had been told that he would receive $4.00 if he scored 80% or higher on the final test, $2.00 if he scored from 50 to 79% and nothing if he scored below 50%. Compared with other subjects using the chemically treated answer sheets completed the study of the text in less time and appeared to depend on the mastery test for additional instruction. They performed significantly poorer on the Unit-Mastery tests. On the final criterion test, however, none of the groups differed significantly. Rather complex factors must be considered in specifying the optimal conditions of reinforcement and incentives.

This study compared three intervals of delay (corresponding to the times required to read several words, paragraphs, or pages) between initial reading and subsequent self-testing for recall, in three types of programed texts. One type of text permitted the subject to reread before answering (Preview), another after answering (Review), and a third type exposed the correct answer after the subject responded (Confirmation). Three matched groups of pretested sixth graders, 55 in all, read the three types of programs and took a posttest. Both variables, program type and delay interval, affected program errors but neither affected gain scores. However, all delay intervals of self-testing were superior to no self-testing. Related research was reviewed from a cybernetic viewpoint. (Author)