University of RichmondUR Scholarship Repository

Master's Theses Student Research

1966

An investigation of the novelty effect in programedinstructionFrederick Sale Jr.

Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/masters-theses

Part of the Psychology Commons

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Research at UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion inMaster's Theses by an authorized administrator of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contactscholarshiprepository@richmond.edu.

Recommended CitationSale, Frederick Jr., "An investigation of the novelty effect in programed instruction" (1966). Master's Theses. Paper 934.

All IBWSTIGATIOI or TB IOVELTY BJ"fmT

D HlCXJRAMED lHSiRUCTIOll

LIBRARY

UNIVERSITY OF R!CHMOND'

VIRGINIA.

AB IHWSTIGATIOI or TBS ROVlll.ft smcT

DI PaOlRAMSD DS'l'RUCTIOll

by

Frederick Sale, Jr.

A theau submitted in part1&1 ftll.tUlaent.

of th• requiremente tor the degree or Muter of Arts

1n Pa10holoa in the G!'ad.uate Sohool ot the

tJniwnitJ' of Richmon:!

April 1966

'!he auth01" wishes to ups-eaa his eincei-e appreoi&ticm to the

l*lben ot h1I thesis oomdttee - Dzt. Roben J. Fllei-, Cha1nan,.

Dr. Merton 1. CU"fe!-1 an::l Dl'• W~ll Sam R. i.attv1oh - for their in­

ftluabl• guidance in th• pertornsancse ot this atud7•

Additional thanks are in order, again to nr. Lettvich aa wU

as to Hr. Riobard Patten, tl"oa whoa• olaseee the eubjectJI tor thU

project were drawn.

s.u.

Chapter Page

I. Background ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1

II. '!he Problem •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 6

III. Procedure •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 13

rl. Results •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 16

V. Discussion •••• • •• ••• • ••••••• •'• ••••••••••••• •. •. •. • •••• •. • • 23

VI. SUl!D'bal'y ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 29

Appen:lix A •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 31

Appen:lix I •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 32

Appetdix C •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• )4

Appen::lix D •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 36

Bibliography •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 38

Vita •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 46

cm~A.RY

UNfVE:RSITY OF R!CHMONO'

VIHGlNIA

iv•

Table Page

I. S\111DW!7 ot analysis of vai-iance tor errors

made on p:ttogl"ams ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 18

II. SumJna!7 ot Nevman·leula test tor ditre:rencea

between mean errors dving each experimen•

tal session •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 19 III. S\llllmal'7 ot analysis of variance tor re-

quired program completion time ••••••••••••••••••••••••• 20

IV. Summar7 of Newman-Keuls test tor ditfenncea

between mean program completion times •••••••••••••••••• 21

v. S\llll'll&17 of &nalJ'SiS ot variance tor or1•

tenon test scores ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 22

••

Figure Page

1. Decrement 1n mean cOlllP].etion time across

experimental sessions •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 24

2. Decrement in mean &rrOl"a acroae esperi-

mental aessiol'JS •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 25 3. ConsistellCT of critePion post-test scores

across .xnerimental sessions ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• '1:1

Chapter I.

'lbe use of tnecliate-teedbaok aechanioal dmaes to instruct,

or aa an aid to instruction, ie b7 no aeana a mv idea (Stolurov,

1961 ). M ta back u 18661 Baloyon Sld.nJMnt developed an:l patented

a spelling uohine tor uae u an aid to the teaoheiol am in 187)

Jevons created a logic aaobine whioh 00\lld generate eolutiona to

logical PJ"Obleu represented 1,mbolio.U,.. In 191St Ordahl an:l

Ordahl built a aimple teaching machine d.esiped to teach seJ"ial

1ldlls to suntall7 retarded old ld:ren. In 19181 B. B. Engliah :ln­

nnted a deviae to train soldiers to •lowly equeese a n.ne trigger&

hie device provided immediate knowledge ot results b7 uans of a

unoaeter with a Yisible liquid oolum lfhioh rose u the aoldia

squeezed.

At abotlt the aaae time, in 191St Sidney L. Presae7 - now

known as the •IJ'ardtather ot th• teaching maobine• - fuat began

h1a eti'Ol"ts along this line1 and hie initial aachine wu described

ard exhibited at APA aeetinga in 1924 am again, with aome imprcmJ•

mente, in 192S (Morrill). Thi• machine presented multiple-ohoioe

questions one b7 one within a fl'amed wirdow (hence the nute •trame•

applied to a single unit of 1nf'ol"ll1At.1on in a program). 1.'h• stu­

dent operathg the machine pwshed one ot tour bllttona correspond.

1ng to his ohoioe ot answen J am the achine would present the

next frame it th• antVer was correct or- stop automatioally it it

wae lnoorrect, thWI pro'fi.ding irmudiate teed.back to th• student.

In a 1926 article, Pre•••Y desori.bea the addition to hi• naabine

ot a aeohat'd.sa wbioh a.utoaatloall7 present.eel a small piece of oan­

dy u a NWUd fOP each CO!'NGt anawe!'.

In 1930, Peteraon dnised th• Ch•oCardt a ••lt .. coring, &..

mecH.ate-teedbaok device cona!Jltina ot • ohemioall::v treated paper on

which the student mukad hi8 annen with a special ink. It he

maPked th• oOft'eat one, the 1nk turned dark1 if' his lm81f8P vu 1n­

oonect1 the ink tul"n9d red. 'ltd• id.ea. aroused T!Ptual.17 no inter­

e•t 4!llong experimenters then OP since. In 19321 Pressey deaoribed

a nw}7-d.eveloped a!'lllW:tt sheet which oonld be soared bY an auto­

matic lcOl'ing dmce vhioh l'eCOJ'ded errors b7 item& and Little, in

19341 exper1Mnt.a117 uad thia &ftlV8~ sheet :ln olunooa situat1o•

am tOl\D!l it to be MON ettectift than oonvent.S.onal testing tech­

niqu••• In Wo:rld War ll the Ue Se la"fJ' introduaed the Autoaatie

Ra\eJJ - a dnioe bearing •011• reaeablance h teohniqu.• to Pstesaey•a

original maohine - in whioh quutiona wen t.J..uhed on a eoreen am students pished buttona to anenr them. In 19.SOt th• ..,_-aot.1.,.

Preaaey oaae ont with th• idea ot the pttnohboad1 whioh also P"O­

rided. 1mediate teedb&ok.

In •P1te ot these gPadual dewlopmenta, honve•, th• atatul of

th• teaobing naoh1ne remained 1"1rtually at a 1ta1datU1 .. in obli•

non, aa tar u the genenl. publio was oonaemed - until t9.si..

when B. F. Sld.nnftt pibllahed an ariiole atr.saing th• impoftanoe ot

reintoroenent in lea1'1\ing ab! 1Ugge1ting that programed teaahina

aetboda "1ight. well be u•ed to this •rd• A8 a bui1 tor his poai•

tion. he oited. studies with pigeons, Pata, dogs, monk919t human chU-

2.

drea, am paJChotiol which demonstrated the erapirical relationship

ot behavior to its oontequenaee and the changes in beha'l'ior whioh

oan be etteatad thrOttgh revad•

A aeoord &l"t1ole b7 Sld.nne:r 1n 1958 gaw prograecl 1nstru.otion

th• 1apetua it needed to beoome a f01'9m0lt IUbjeot tor aoadend.o re•

•eooh am dneloiaentJ an:1 Ho1"J'ill (1961) obsenea that the rapid

growth 1n the interest 1n programing a1nce that t1ae is retleoted. b7

the inoreaa• ot aticlea on the eubjeot 1n the literature. Be tourd

onl.1' •ix prioJ' to 1948 bit aore than SO b7 1960• 1DOSt of these in

th• late 1950'•• Only two J9U9 later• 1n 1962, Sohl"am nvieweci

~ 100 atudlea of programed inttruotion, although some ot these

ven unpubliahad.. 1.bda7, th9" are count.le•• 'boolmt ewn more ati•

oles, am thH• entire journal.a - one of the latter originating

from Great Britain - dftaling apeoitioall7 with d..,.lop1enta 1n the

field of programing. Abroad, Hartley (1*) describes the ;l'OWth ot

interest 1n Pl'Oll'•ed learning since 19601 &Dl be retera to work•

1hoP1 on ~ 1n Jordan, Wigaia, an:l J!!Pull, with repreaen­

t&t1Y,e1 from SWeden. Chile, SUdan, Gu&, s,na, ard JAbanon. A fur­

ther N'fiw of CUTent literature diaclos•• articles on progl'aaing

trca Canada, South Ab'ioa, th• USSR, ani France.

\b.e usae of prc>grutS are as broad. &rd varied as the tield of

education itself. In the academic world, SahrUll (1962) Htimatell

that lmnh-ed.a of school.a am approximately a IJilllon studenta have

been exposed to programed inatruotion• am these figures AM oontin­

ttall7 grmd.ng. JTograma haw been used etteotively w1 th etudentl

f'l'om two years old to th• college post..cloatoral level. am w1 tJi groups

of mentally retarded students u nll as etudents in the gifted I. Q.

3.

range. In the field ot apeoiel. ecluoation, Allhorott (1961) reports

on the euoceHf'ul un ot pz-ogras to teach the tumamental.8 ot re.d­

ine am vriting braille to the blin:ll an:1 haunt (1963) deaorlbea

prognma tor instru.oting deaf oh1ldNn in in:hultri&l atl • Sldred

(1965) describes pi'Ograaed high school oounea for aental patienta

umer the age ot 21 at Vel'lnont State Ho&pitall am he pointl mt

the unique taot that these progPama have had aaae unexpected thera­

peutio Talu•• aince the gNdua1. progression ot ocuree presentation

am the lNilt-in lav el'TO!' rate allow mentally ill students who haw

repeatedl.7 expeZ"ienoed rejection and failure to aohieve a rewarding

degree of aoad91111o succ••••

In the tield ot military training, instl"uotora haw follond

the ti-em ton.rd the dnelopnent ot programed instruction of all

typed ot subject matt.el'. T)'pioal of these dnelopm.ental ettortl

are studies 1n the u. s. Navy described by Schram (1962) an:l in

the u. s. A1.Jo rarce reported b;r Ablll& (1964) am Da"fiea (198>). 'lhe

latter auther refer• to one two-yeap ptr1od invhioh no lea• than

46 dittei-ent programed ooors91 on teohnioal subjects were written,

tried, a1'Ji evaluted. Similar work is being done abroad, nota~ in

Bngl&Di in the Royal Ba.T.Y (Wallis. Wicka, 1964) am the Royal Air

Force (Knight• 1964).

1he oharaoterist101 am requirel!lenta ot ift:luatrial tl'd.n1ng

bear many aimilaritiea to those ot the ailltarJ'• In both areu,

]>l'ogramed inlltl"uotion t1lla a uni.qua role by (1) accelerating tnin-

1.ngJ (2) pend.ting training on an in:lividualt non-aoheduled1 or re­

mote-eite basil& (3) relining a oritioal shortage of qualln.ecl in-

1truotors a (4) releasing instructors for advance preparation or eup.

4.

~ dutie11 &.n:l (S) ata.rdardizing complex t.echnical instru.cUon­

&1 mate:rial (Meacham• 1964). As a result or these benen.t.s, Abila in

1964 touni approximately '.3SO programs &ftUabl• commeroi&ll.1' to in­

dustrial wsera. In addition, a 11Ulflbe1" ot laJ."g• tmuti-1ea haw tail­

~ made one or mcn>e prograaecl courses to their own spec1tia requiff.

menta. such as IBM (Bughee • V..ott&mara, 1961), Conv~!:r (l9J8t 1964),

Ford Motor Company' (Stewart,, 1963)1 th• L1te Insul"&ttCe Management

Association (Welsh, Antonelli, A 1hayer, 196.5), Bell Tele~m (Holt,

1963), EMt.man Kodak Company (Bruce• 196,),, and DuPont (o•Donne~,

1963).

'lhe llOllt aot1w proponent of propoamed instruction toda7 1a

B. '· Skinner (1961&, 1961b, 1963 ). He atate1 that th• ptirpose ot

any teaching 1a ablply to expec1ite learning, as students would •­

Tentuall7 learn b:r themaelw• •Tll"'•Y• 'lh• teaoha'• job is to &r•

range corditiona umer which more •ff'eative learning take8 place.

Skinner aeea programed 1nat1'\iotion as a fthiole for appl71ng the

prinoiplu of operant oonii tioning to th• olassrooa, not onl.T to

facilitate an:l atardard!ze lea:rning, bu.t also to Jd.rd.mia• the •f•

teotl on learning ot iniirldual ditterenoH in student abU1t7 b7

allowing •aoh student to VOJ'k toward the aame learning or1tenon

but each at hi• own rate of speed. For Sld.nner, progi-ud.ng 1• li·

near, with eaoh frame oonta1n1ng only a wrr ama1l bit ot intonu.­

tion - ••ldom if' eTeP more than a ••ntence. Each .frame etd.s trith

a question calling tOP a brief constrnoted response on the part of

the student. 'lhese questiom pl"O'dd.e the OPPOJ"tunity tor the aotiw

atwlent rupoming whiob Skinne!' feel.I ta essential. to learnings ed.

eaob question 1• presented 18\'U'al tiftea, tirat with 1trong prompting

ouea which an gradual.17 withdrawn as the rea;ponae in .repeatedly •11•

01tect. '1b1a technique ensures a low erroi- rate - lesa than 1~

errors is Skirme:r•e ideal - t.hua avoiding el.1.a1tat1on (am learn­

ing) ot erroneou.e answrs, as veU aa p!'OViding ninf'oroament to the

•tu.dent u he sees that 11• an.swan an ooneot. Skinner auggeata

t.hat reinforcement al.lo might oClll9 f'roll the exploratorJ" an:! manipi•

lat1ve activities of th• atudenta working the program. It vas Sld.n­

Mrt toot who first emphasised. the neoe1aity of a logical sequenae

in th• p:re1entation ot p:l"optaed material.

the other primarJ' theories of programed inSt.J"uotion oenter

aromd the •adjnnot auto1nstruction• ot Preas•J' (1963) an:l Ionian

Crouder•a branched, or intrinsic, proploUling (1960). over 9f1/, of

the pl"e>gr&ld written today, however, are in the Sld.nneJ:"l&n, or lin­

ear, style (Schram, 1962). For thia reason, it is t.h18 latte!" tbeo­

i-etioal approaob 1'hioh will be inftstigated in this 1tudy.

Imestigat.ora of the TUi&blea which differentiate between

the ujor theOl'iea have bad a d1t't1oult time supporting one point ot

Tiw oveP another. S9'1'8ral studies comparing linear ard branched

PJ"Og!JUlS (Sentert Bieberg, Abut A Morgan• 1964J kutman, 196)1 Sil•

berman, lfelaragno, Coulllon, a Sataun, 1961) have found no aign1.fl.•

oant differences in learning oaused by the two tne•• 1h• queation

of oonstruoted.-respcmse w lllUltlple-ohoioe questions in prograa frames

is as ,et unanawl'ed. detinitivel.y, since the etteot.ivenesa ot either

type seeu to deperd on the subject matter and putpose or the p:ro­

gra (Will~aN, 1963 ard 196SI "7t 1960). A.not.he?" oontraren1al

point 1s that ot vhather1 as Skinnftlt inaiata, act.i• responses au.at

be elio1tecl 1n a propaa before lea.ming oan take place& here again,

evidence 1.a equivocal, vi th the bulk ot studies showing no aignUi­

oant differences in l•a!"ning resulting troll overt. am ocrrert "8pold-

1ng (rikat 19641 Tobias 6 Weinel', 196'.3s Alter 6 SUveman, 1962; Roe1

1962 a1d 19601 Morrill, 1961).

EYen the med tor a logical. frame eequence ts questionable in

?.

the face ot studies such aa those by Ln1n am Bake!" (1963) ant Ham­

ilton (1961 ), who oompared prognme with logi.oallJ' an! n:rdoal.y fir•

dared frame• an:l found no e1gn1t1oant diffel"encea 1n leaming. Aft

interesting point 1n tb11 context is noted bJ' Roe (1960), one ot

whose subject.a misread the direotions tor bis Pl"OP'aaed text an!

followed th• trutes down the page instead ot tra1a page to page, O&US•

ing bill to ••e tbe items ln this ordaa 11 401 791 118, 1571 21 411

eo. 1191 1581 ,, 42, 81.,1201 1S9J et.o. B• wu atul able to attain

a high •oOff cm the er:tterion teat. 'lh• cueing ad-.ooated bJ' Sld.Jmelt

hal been toun! in at least one a:plel"iment (Tritt1poe1 Mttipoe, I

Hahn, 1963) to be ot difterent ftlue at dittennt aa:• level.a. W1th

regard to the student biJBaelt 1 Sid.mer'• th•OJIJ' oonce2'ning adnbd.·

sation in: p.rograaed instruction ot incl1't'idua1 dUterencu tn lbil•

i ty ns supported in earlier atud1• to a l.U'ge .nent. A rt\l1lbw

ot llOl"9 reoent 1tn'98tigations (Fib1 19641 tarJda • Le1tb1 1~1

Williaru, 196.5 aid 196'' Carroll, 19631 Alter, 19631 tm:ibeJlt. Miller,

A Wiley, 1962), on the other hard, have tourd learning to be aigrd.t.

1oantJ.7 oOl"fflated with student I. Q. or other ability meUUl'ea.

On the basil of the eridence presented abon1 it 1• apparent

that no one theorist bu foun:l the ultlMw answer to oonaiatentl.7

superior programing. In addition, t.hera ie nov an 1noreuing mm•

ber of studiee w1oh H.1•• valid ciu••tio• ... to whetbel" programed

inatruotion 1n general is in taot auperior to conventional teaobUg

(Jenning•• 196.Sa Goldberr, Dawson, • Ba:r'fftt1 1*1 Go1dbeck A CUIP­

bell1 19621 Silbenan, Melat'agno, Coullon, • Sstavan, 1961). A t.J­

pioal thd1ng ha bMn that wU-stnotund text OJI lecture •terialt

OJI propaae4 •te!'ial with th• ananr1 already tilled in1 oan Pl'0-

8.

duce learning at least equal to that cau•e:l b7 prograMd lt'Jlt.ftotion.

!here are 1m1oat1ona• too• that then ia eome relationship bet.wen

student attitude toward a program &1'14 leaming tz.. that program

(Stewal'tt 1963t C&rtiePt 1963J Mottlllt 1961)1 &rd SOIH investig&•

tors teel that th• unpnoed.entecl auoceaa of progrUted instruction

thus to mq ban been du•• at least to soma extent, to 1tl newneae

am uniqueneaa (Welsh, Antonelli, A 1'ba.1ert 196.Sa Abmat 19641 Sohramm,

1964}. In partial n.pport of this opinion, a etud7 b7 Goldberg•

Danon, and Barrett (1964) towd t.hat fa'l'Orabl• attitude toward a

pPOgraa deoreued among atudentl aa they WOi"kecl through 1 t OTer a

thJ"ee week period. Cartier (1963) found that motivation a.ttected

leam.1.ng t"rom a pzt<>gpaa assigned to college students u homework.

In oonneotion with Skinnel''• aniaal operant oonditioning •naloat

Fowler (1965) cit.es extensive nidenoe showing that cwgani1111 a:hi·

bit a deoline Oftl' time in the investigation of untudlS•r at.1nmlu

objeotl to which the7 N081"8 exterded exposure, since inoreaeing

tudliarit7 with th••• at1-li allowa curiosity arr1 expl~•to?i7 mo­

tivation to dissipate am the •timull to beoome lea• "ncrfal.• It,

a• Slcirmer aa11, the laws of human am &nSmal learning am beha'lior

work the eame way, then a simile decrement in student ourioa1t7

towal"d ~ instrv.otion (eugg .. ted by Skinner u one 11&1.n mo.

tivator in th1a t11>9 of •ituat.ion) llight be expected to 000\U' Oftzt

expol\\l"8 ts.me.

It is for the•• reaaons that 1 t ls tel t th& t the possible

nonlt7 effect in pi-ogramed instruction should be thoroupi,. 1n­

T81tigated. 'lb• nawne9• ot Pf'Og!'a.ming in all phase• of education,

together vi th the apparent a1mplio1 't7 of the amaU atepe tor atu-

9.

dents using Pl'081'Ul8t may haw oaueed an initial fa'VW&bl.e ff&Otion

to the method which nen now mq be wearing ott very ~ ..

public tuiliarit7vith the programing concept growa. Pophaa (1964)

studied. th1a possibility using a 1.aso-tr,.. progna on plane geo­

•t.1'7 presented on a P'oPinger #2002 teacbit'lg maohine to 23 11xth

grade stud.anti c.U.Tlded into two groups equated on the Calitornta

Test of Mental Maturi t7 ani the SRA Ari:thaetic teat. Both groups

used the program tor an entire •••terJ one pou.p bad ued a •bd.· le prognm on algebra during the preceding s•ester. whil• th• other

received only the geometrJ' J>rC>fP"Ul• It was telt that &rtV novelty

etrect atteoting prograed learning would have worn ott tor; the for.

mer gt-oup but not tor the lattn. Firdinp tailed to auppori the

nanlty etteot bJ'P(>'thesu when th• groups ohowed no aignif1oant dit·

teronoea in learning on an eul.7 test during the eeaester o-, on a

final test ot all aeoorrl 1emester progrus«l material. An attitude

quettionnaire concerning the pl'Ogram shoved no difteranoe between the

groupa at the em ot th• seoon:l eemesta.

'1'hree d1ffioult1ea are •••n with the Pophaa data wh1oh make it

ditt1cult to draw detin1te1 1•neral.17-appllcable conoluions fl'om

th•• (1) In .,S.w ot the l'eOent Midenae ahowing ditterenttal et.

tecta on program result.a or atud.ent age and maturit71 :1t 1a question ...

able whether tin:lings pertaSm ng to •lewn-)"e&J"-olde oan Nf•l.7 be

general11ed to 1rduatr1al1 military, college, or eTen high achool

poJN].atioms.

(2) Al Sopha b1mlelt obaerwa1 the atud7 wu contuotecl in a

oollege d«1onetrat1on 1obool1 where th• students had became accutomed

10.

to adult obsenation tor eeftn JHff• 1h1s tact in ita•lt td.ght

well llinbd.ee l.D7 axper1m&ntal ttaawthorne etf'eottt tor both groups.

(3) Even though PoJlbam was cono91"ned w1 th a PM•ible eal"l.7•

dissipating novelty e:f'f'eot and attempted to t'in1 it b7 tesUng bbth

P'0\1P8 af'ter ooaplet.ion of the ts.rat 600 t:N.mea, it m1e)lt be that

euch an et1'eot bae an ewn •he>l'ter life, thus dissipating for th•

one-Vtogram group betor• their CO!lll>l•tion of 600 treaes. Popham.

reports no comparison of' the auccess ot h1a programed instr\lotion

with that ot convttntional. inst.notion ot the saae material.t ..m. the

majority or studies making such a comparison have uaod 11UOh ehort­

ei- ~ograms in the experimental situation (SohrUl!lt 1964). F.rom a

practical point ot "fiw, as wll, a review ot cun-ent literature

reveals that 111&111' programs 1n use in hdustr7 ar.d the mllita.r;r are

fairl.1' eborll ar.d Abma. (1964) states that pi'Ogra length tor th•

3SO commercially available programs he to1Ud i-anges down to onl1'

SO frames.

In the only oth~ atudy of its tJPe• Porter (1960) reporta

tinlinga similar to those ot Popham 1n an investigation ext.em.eel

ovar a tive-mont.h periodJ but the objection cited in ()) above would

apply on this case 1.1 wn. 1be present study vu designed to cmtr0orM, at 1.ast to eOt11C

extent• the above probleJIS by using older, experinentall.7 naiw

subjects am shorter progr&!d. A compal'iaon is made 'between .uocea.

sive pertormances by a gl"oup ot college students on a •eriea of three

pPOgrams • 'J.'he null hJPOth••i• ia that there will be no aignitlcant

dittei-ences between pertormanoos on the thl'ee Pl"Ogtmu. On the ct.he!'

ham, significant decreases in efteoti"t9nes1 ot 'P6J"formance by th&

11.

eubjeota 011 ea.oh auooessiw progl'aa could be taken as evldenc• that

th• expected nowlty etteot operating in:l.tiallJ' 1n the learning 1itu•

ationdilsipatea with incnaaing upoaun of the aubjeota to prosrued.

instruotioftt 11hlle the oppoaite nsulte - •ignitioant s.mnaau ia

pel'f'onanoe t.rca program to Pl'O&i-&a - would show the taoUitatiw

etteota ot practiae.

12.

a volunteer ba81a hort ~ students ot Int:to:iuctoi-;r Paycholoa at

the Uni'ftnity of l\iobru>ld. Subject.a valtct all temal.•1 :ranging 1n

at;i'f from 19 Je»"D O mont.h..1 to 22 yeaN 1 ao'ftth• with a mean age ot

appr~toly 20 J1!111'S 1 lllCnth. EJ'Aluaiw use of tft!lual.e subject.

was felt to be justUitld on the basis ot nidenoe tmah •• that rtt•

portlJd b7 Can (1960) b'oa a 1tuc17 by Ponei- ebowlng no aipifioant

ditter<snces betwMD perfomaft099 by ule am teu.1• students Oft P'O­

gramd iMtru.et!on.

MA.TERLWI t ·nu-ee ~ wn ••lectecl tor use in th1a atad71

P1- an introd.uotoJT owrae on aelenanship by J. s. Schitt (1964)1

of vhich Section I1 •Prospectinct• oonaieting of ?O fl"ae•• tr&8 ued

1n entiretn P2- a prognaed oOIXl'ae tor traird.na bank tellen 4"9•

loped bJ' Pa70hological Comultants, Inoe1 of which th• fbtst SS traaea

of Unit III, dealing with th• detection and ha!dllag ot counterfeit

•OM71 n:n usacts an! P,,. a aelt-tnstTuotional course on basio ao­

oounting by Wentworth, Mcmtg01d171 Gowen, am Harrell (196) )1 of

11hioh all '11 tnaes ot Part 21 *Cbtpa.te,• vare uaect. AU three pro.

pas vere PHSented by booke am th••• pattioular progitlM were

selected. tor the foll01fing reasons• (1) each one deal.a with mate•

rial or whloh the •ftl'&P IntZ"oduotoJ7 Psychology student would have

little or rio detailed kncwledgGJ (2) none of the progra.m«l lussom

uaed ~ prior kl'IOWl.Gdge ot the subjeet mattAir on +.he ~ ot

the st\¥3.ents J (3) 9.lJ. three pregt'atrS duel. with lcr.!9 {lb&s<! Of bu.ad.•

i'&ets knolrledge• although each is UN'ftl.AW to the others (thus ttlim•

ina:td.ng nn;y tra.n.sfer of subject n.tttel" :r.toll ono ~ to tho 3'ftt)I

ttni (4) oaeh program 1.nc~tes the short f'rat'lGa, cc>mtl<ucsW•

ztespons• questA.cma. am. limar tarmat edvoaa'b!d bys~. All

three ae -...riiodn in. tofti'1t with tf'3J!HJS pre&Gnted in scqucmce

down oaoh p&g') a1\.'.l correct. ~ ~lid <>PPOSit6 ee.eh qu()Stion.

SUbjaots ~ wovidtSd. w:t th c&l'dbot\rd mastm to OO'Ml"' th• oon-eot

tfi'iTHC}Rt 'Jhe •I• wtre di"fidec! into 1tx groups of tO\U" eaohl

to control tar &'tlJ' poes1.ble etteotlt ot rel&tift program ditt1oult7

or l•Jllth or relatift ors.tenon teat difficulty• th•• three groups

nceS.ftd. the three p.rograme in one of the followi:ng Ol'dana °t• 1·

2·3S Oa• 2-3-1• O,• 3·1-21 ~· t-3-lt o,, 2-1·3• or 06• ,.:a.1. SI

reoeiftd their programa in thrM aeparate -•ions during three no•

o•••iw ve•kl• In the tint. ••••ion, all S~ wen in1Ual17 given

atarldardlmed. inat:ziuct1ona oonoernin& t.h• use of th• programs (aee

Appefliix A) am t.heS.. questions were anlW9'PeCl. At the begining of

•aoh ot the two subsequent ••••ion1, Sa wre again pemited to uk

questions oonoerninl the us• ot the progr&118 cml.1'· As eaoh s ooa­

pletad a progra1tt 1he vaa giwn a 3o-itea written criterion teat

oonei1ting of oonstruoted-r-esponse questions baaed on material

ocverecl in the program (see Apperd1oes B, c, an! D). During th•

oour•• or the ~bent, subjecta reoeived no feedback as to their

performance on the criterion tests, not' wre the;y told the parpose

14.

ot the atudy.

9>.Ne eetl ot uperblental data WH l*80orddel - aean ftWl'lbert

ot anon made dur~ aoqiliition on each program by eaob poup1

aean prog:raa completion t11le to the neaeat ld.mte tor each poup

on eaob Pl"Oll'Ult arid lll8aa post-tut acoree tor eaob lffU.P in e&oh

•••aion. Sa •N not told that a reoOld ot time was 'being kept.

Bach 1et ot data waa analysed using a 6 s 3 AJfOV deeign with re­

peated ~ ('W'1rleJt9 1962 )1 as tollowa 1

01 pt P2 ,, 02 '2

,, '1

PRESEBTATIOI

°' CIU>BR ,, '1 '2

~ '1 ,, Pz

o, '2 '1 P3

06 ,, 'a '1

In each cue, row aeana vO\lld gin an irdio&tion of the etteotlt it

&JU'•, ot ditterent program prenntation order. Column means would

•how th• ettectl of the dissipation of the hypothesised ncmalty •f•

teot or ot practice.

Dm-tng th• oovae of thU atud.71 experimental eeasiona for

the inii'fidual aubjeote wre bel.4 t.roa five to Jd.ne daJ8 apart. cl.••

pelding on the eubjectl t ava11abU1t7e with a mean inten'al bet.wen

eeaaiona of aPPl'OXimat.17 IEt'Vltn da19. Hore atringent aontrol on the

length of tl'd.a tnter-sef s1on interval vaa not conaid•ecl necessary•

aino• th• use ot ~amed 1nstruct1oa - pat1culal.J' in i!dustrJ'

am the id.Utan - 1a frequently oharaotaizecl by flaible sche·

duU.ng.

Based on the data obtd.ned1 the seotiona ot the tbl'ee programs

vbich were used vere toum to have the following oft!'-all .,.or :rates -

2.n tor P1, the aalU1rllmlh1p coar••• 1.~ tor P2, the bank telleJ'

training ooun•t arid 4.~ tor Pl' the progna on baslo accounting -

all wll below Skinne:r•• 1Ugpatecl oriterion ot 1~ twdmwn incorrect

ttesponsea. Mean O'f'9!'-all amount ot learning, baaed on orit&rlcm test

scores, was 73.~ tor P1, 93.61'C tor P2, am 75.61f, tor P3• AU

experimental snsiom a"VVagad 39.7 aimtes aotual program 'tt'WJdng

time1 with P1 requiring an average of 26.2 llinutes to ooapleticm1

P2 requiring 39.9 Jftinutee, am P3 requ1rillg 53.0 rd.rm.tea. Because

ot the large d1tterenoes between raw data within all tbHe of th.a in­

wstigate4 paametera ot the three progrus, conversion ot all data

to T aoore• was telt to be neoessarr to allow comparability bet.ween

oeU. in each A.ROY (Cronbaoh, 1960).

In the anal.19e1 ot ftl"ianoe, notabl.J" aignitioant results were

obtained in two areas. Pint, with respect to errors made 1n work•

!ng thratlgb the prootUUJ• the etteots ot repu.Wd ~ to pro­

gramed instru.otion OYeP the tbne experim~ntal sesalcma vu •igni•

tioant at the .os ltmtl (•'H Table I). A Nevman-teula test ot dif'·

tereno .. between ordeNd. meant showd a 1ignif1oant (.os level) d••

onment in such erron fJtoa the aeocmd to the th1l'd •••ion bit not

:h-oa the tiret to the nootd (see '.l'&bl• II). ihere were no ditt•r•

enoes on the AIOV betwen the 11x srouPI llhiah P90eS:nd the three

propama 1n d.itterent Ol'dera, nor vas there signltioant Ox S inter•

action.

SecmdJ.71 the etteota cm progra completion t1ae ot three SUO•

oeaeive uea or propamed u.terial. wn a1gnitioant at. the .05 level

(1 .. Table m). Using the Hevman-Keuls procedure, a deorel!lent in

time nquihd tor oompletion waa toum to be a1grd.fioant at the .os level from thtl tint to the aeoord ard t1'0ll the eeoom to th• third

working sessions (1ee Table IV). .Main then wre no •igniticant

ditterenoee betwen the aix gJ"OtlP8 attribntable to the etteot.a ot

P!'Oghm pnsentation ord9"1 ard Ox S intei-aotion vu not eignU'i­

oant.

In the third area inveatilated - mean group scOHa on aucoea­

eive oriterion testll - analJS:la of Y&J"iance reYeAJ.ed no aignit.loant

main or interaction ettectll ot either ot the two taoton (••• Table

V).

17.

'&BIB x. SUJll!IUJ' ot anal.1Sia of' w.r1ance toit errors ude on p.rogrw.

§qurqt d·fe Ki E 1

~tween aubjeow n Old.a (0) s 73.20 .76

Subj. •• groups 18 95.90

Within 1t1b.1!cta 48 -Sessions (S) 2 243.76 4.o6•

OxS 10 59.40 .99

8 X Subj. v. gl'OUpe 36 S9.98

• F.95

(2, 36) • 3.32

18.

TAmB II.

SUmzaar7 of Rewman-Keul.s teat tar ditteHncea 'between uan enore

during eaoh experimental eeasion.

* S1gn1tioant at .os level

19.

Seuion 2

2oe.1a Seas1c;m 1

211.12

TABIB m. S'1.U!ml&17 ot anal.yaie ot variance for required pro;raa om.plat.ion

time.

Om® d.f. l6 , Betwen aub;teota .n ~ 1J~:, ,

Order (0) s 116.?3 i•63 Subj. v. gl'oups 18 143e5)

Within aub.1eota, 48 -3essiom (S) 2 181.52 5.51-:.

0 %. s 10 40.24 1.24

s x Subj. •• groups 36 l2.57

• '.95<2. 36) = 3.32

fABl8 1.V.

S'Wllln&l7 of Newman-leuls· test tor ditterences between J11Nn ~­

ooaplet1on ts.mes.

s .. aion 2 Session 1

211 • .53

11.88•

• Significant at .os lewl

21.

TABlB v.

Sgurqt d.(;, " ,

I

B!tween 1Ubjecj;! n Order (0) 5 'Z/.28 1.90

Subj. w. groups 18 14.32

Within aub.3!gte !§.

Sessions (S) 2 14.30 .26

OxS 10 8.34 .1s S z SUbj. v. gi-onpa '6 ,..09

Chapter v.

DISCUSS IOI

fl"Olll the tongoing results it 1• apparent that tbie study ot­

ters no support. for the hypothesis of a novelty effect 1n p.rogramed

1nstruotion which would fao111 tate early performance ant then aub­

aequentl.T dissipate• oauaing an aocompall1ing decline 1n performance.

Instead, there is atrong eT.lden.ce here that practice in the

uae ot prograu leads to an O'feJ"-all decrease 1n worldng t1lmt (eee

Figure 1) - 1n this oaae aft.el' t.he til"at am again after th• sec•

om piaogra11'18d lessons - aa wll as a somewhat 11.ower decrease 1n

er:rors made on the p!'ogi-am (see F!gutte 2), here atter the oomi>le•

tion or the fuat two lessons. While it Jld.ght be argued that the

time deol'8JIS9nt alomt ia not ft4cessar111' 1nd1oat1w ot improved pro­

t1oienc7 - that it might, in tact, show increasing los1 of 1ntel*•

e1t an:l a pawing desire on the put of the students t.b '°get it

over with" - the accompanying deoHaSe 1n enon Cffat.17 strengthens

the case tor 1.mp?oovement through }>!'actioe.

'lhe large siae ot both these decrement& is all the aon etrik•

1ng 1n view of the tact that th• subjects only worked through a

total ot 252 fl'a.mea in the oovse ot th• experiment. Since there 1a

no reason to assume that either coaplet.ion time or error i-ate reaohed

asymptote at thi• point, additional experlmentation involving more

progrued material owr a longeJ" period ot time, but with working

time and enoit mea8Ul"ea taken on a daily baaht vould be ot ruue in

220

210

MIJan propam working tine expressed 200 1n T ecores

190

180

~tal aeasions

FIGUP~ t.

Deornent in mean completion time across experimental seasiona.

24.

220

210

Hean· 81T<>J'4 per 1easion 200 expressed in T aooi>••

190

180

rIGURE 2.

Decremnt 1n mean e1'T01"$ across experimental sessions.

deteraining the upper liaita of the ettecta ot Pl"&Othe on these

two ftl'iables.

It 1a worth mentioning here that the laok of signitioant. in­

teraction in the anal.JS .. of ftrianoe point.a to th• taot that clU'·

terent.Ul program lengthl am d1tt1cult7 do not appear to haft &rJ7

bearing on th• facilitative nature ot the pn.otioe etteot.

'lh• laok ot a significant impzoeftment in learning u IJl9UU1'ecl

by the three criterion post-tee ta (see figure 3) in:iioatea that prac­

tice in this situation atteota bNd!ate performance variables ra­

ther than retent!.on of prograaed aubjeot matter, although it ill

possible that ditterent reaulte on the teats ai~t haft been obtained

it all the- programtd les•cma had dealt vith the same subject, thus

allowing tor sa.. tn.nste:r of subjeot-a&tter training from one ••••

aion to the next u well u van.sf er of the meohanios ot program

un,

'J.bere ar• three possible explanations ot the l!'uulta obtained.

'lb• fuat 1a that there was no novelty ettect tn operation in th1a

eituat1on. In other VOl"d1, the subjects may not haft considered

prograecl inltruotion •• a new am unique stimulus at an, but ra­

thd u eimpl.J' another teaching devioe. On the o~ ham, tJie et­

teotiwnesa of the programed. instruction aethod u.7 haw offset the

effects of its Mftlty1 tbua causing •DT ulti!late loss ot intel'eat

or othv untaT~able change in IUbjeot attitude to be ottaet by the

inorease 1n •kill due to experience, with no loss in amount learned.

\he third poaaib111 ty 18 suggested by some of the animal r•­

aUl'Ch N})O?"ted b;r rovl.a (1965) whiob demonstratd that exploratory

behavior in rats 1n man,y cues ahowe a decrease "1th prolonged ex•

26.

220

210

Mean poat-test aoores 200 expressed in T SCOl'&S

190

180

Experimental sessions

Cona:\atenoy of criterion poat-teat scores across experimental. •Nsions.

posve to untamiliar stun:tli but reappea:oa in the presence ot these

aam.e at.imuli aft.el" the an1Ml has been removed trom them tor a pericd

ot time. 'lhe extent or reounenae ot th1a behavior 18 1n direct

proportion to the length of separation th\e troa the unfamiliar stim­

uli. It th• •••were troue with h'1l!14n subjeota using programed in•

at:ruct1on, the novelty eftect would preaumabl.y augment praot1oe in

each session b7 1nit1all::r inoreasing student 110tivation am then

reinforcing the students' pvto:unoe through exploratoey drive re­

duction - a oonoept in keeping with a portion ot Skinner'• the017.

In v1ev ot the tint1nga of this stud:rt togethe:r with those

ot Popham (1964) and Porter (1960)t it 1a aare to oonolud.o, in any

oaso, that the detrirn.ontal etteots1 if' any, or repeated ~

to PJ!'Opamed instruction aiee negligible and. that suoh exposure

actual.17 f'acllitatea the use of program«:\ materials.

28.

Chapter VI.

SUMMARY

In1t1all.T1 an outline of the hiato!'J' or the dewlopnent ot

1mmecliate-teedback dmoea was pPeaented, followed bT a desorip..

tion ot B. J. Sld.nner•• theOJ7 ot progl'uec11nstruotion and. whT it

VOJ"ks. A number o~ studies lfePe then diacuased which raise aome

question as to the complete tenability of &'ft1' one theoretioal po­

•1tion oonoerning prograni:ng1 and. the point vu made, with eome 1n­

d1reot17 auppoJ'ting evidemtt. u to the possibility ot a nowlty

etrect wbioh baa oont.ributed to the widespread expei-imental auo­

oeaa ot programed inst.'l"uction thus tar but which might ultimately

wear ott, leading to some ooomenaurate deoreaae in ettectiwneaa.

'lh• pnsent study, umertaken to imutigate thi• lattel' poa.

eibillty9 used a repeated ll&&SUffS design to eftluate performance

'bT a group of college atudenta on three auooeaaiw brief programs.

1h• aubjeoU WM divided into aix groups, eaoh group :receiving the

three prograu 1n a cl1tterent order. Reaulta ahowecl no nidena• ot

the bypotholsed noftlt7 effect, but rather of a practice efteot, in­

dioated by signitioant decrement. from one P?"Oll"Ul to the next in

tine required tor com.plet1on an! in errors made on the programs, but

not by IUCOGlsive iMreasea in criterion teat. acor•• 'tb.eae reaul.ts

wel"a duoused 1n the light ot three alternative ex:pl&natiomr, all

ot which led to th• oonoluaion that progl"u use luda to more etteo­

ti'ff aubaequent prograa use.

Appen:lix A.

Inst.notions t• Pint fb:perimental Session

"'lhe experblant in llbioh JOU &H partioipating concerns an 1n­

Testigat1on of eoae obaaoteristios of progl"aaed instruotion. '1hU

1a a special t)'pe ot instol'llotion imol'Ying the pNaentation of aa­

terial 1n em.all steps oall.ed •tr ..... • 1n a logical sequence, with

each f!-ame followed by a quests.on to whioh the student ie requil"ed

to make a respome. In the programs JOU will be uing, corffCt ans­

were U'8 presented opposite each frame. Using the cardboard mask

in front of you. :10\1 v1ll OO'V'llJ'I all the OOl'l'eOt an:nre!'I on each

success1Te page without looking at thn. Write JOtl!" answer to eaoh

question on JOl.11" &nlWel' sheet as ,au oompleta eaoh frame9 then elide

the maak dmm to uncove!' onlJ' th• cor:reot anner to the haae JCN.

have t1.nished. It JOU tird you haw aade a oorreot response, go

on to th• next !Pam.es it JOU make an inooneot nsponse, drav a line

through it &rd write in the oorreot anlWt' beaid• it before proceeding

to the next fl"ame. 'lbere will be no time llnd.t tor this works an:l.9

on o=plet1on ot '1f1ll'Jl progr&JI J'OU will be aeked some questions on

what 3'0\1. haw read. Do 10!1 have arrt questions now oonoerning vh&t

10tl ar-e to do?

"Now 'W'l"i te your names in the upper right-bani oorner ot J'OUJI

ansveJ' 1heets. Open ,our pl"ograms to the papa marked• be sure ;your

amnrer 1188kl are in place, am begin ~king. Remember to answei­

ewey question in eaoh frame.•

31.

.... ________ _ Experimental Session I. ___ _

Answer the tollod.ng questions based on the Mterial which you have

jlult read.

1e '!he tern ttpzoospeoting• HUI ------------ am the two ateps ot the process are am

-------------· 2. A -------------buys the sal~nan•e pro:luat1

a might bu.7 it but ha' :not dons so

19t.

3. Cu•tomen •1' b9 loat because of -----------

4. Poasibl• SOllJ'CU tor IVU!leS ot piaospeote 1nal\ld• ------an1 ______________________ _.

S• Cl>taining troa a :rroapeot the nam ot another prospoct 1a call.Gd

the technique.

6. 'lb• use of a reoommerdation from a well-known W1'fidual 2 busi-

ness or the oonmmnit7 11 called the ------------­

technique.

7. Companies make up lists or -------- trom t.he name• ot

those who respond to ldvertising oaapa1gns.

a. 'lb• two things that a salesman expanla in making oal.18 are --

---------am • 9. 1he three questions that should be asked in qua1.ity1ng a pros-

pect &rel

(t) ___________________________________ ,

~) t

b> t

10. COJl!PIUS7 requinaentl which ban a bearing on outom.J- relations

imlud• • an:l •

11. PJioapeot.a became O\UltoMH llOllt e&11l.7 when-------

12• P:roapeoting proridea the •al•saan "1th Ida peateat oppoitt,unity

to be an:l tbU abilitJ' la hi.a onl7 limit

to the ------- .m ------ ot eoaroe• he oae uee to d•wlop liata of pospeota.

13. .Another opportunity tor th• aalenan to lml'eu• hi• cutomet-1

ooua through perHi'Wing toxa

his produota.

14. One apeoitio thing the aalesman mat detmd.ne bet.- oalling

on a OOlllJ>U1' 11 ------------------•

15. How good a prospect la deperda on h1a --------am __________________ __.

16. P:roapeoting techniques 'ffU7 among •alenen depenling on __

----------------------------·· 17. An 1ncreale in produotiw oaUa by a aaleeman depenia on Ma

33.

.......... ______________ _ Expwillental Sffaion f. ___ _

.Annez- the tolloving questions based on the •tel'ial which JOU haw

just read.

1. Counterfeit monq u vortble•• because ---------

2. A bank is obligated. to turn all oOllntert'eit mone:r ovw to __

'• lfo 1nd11'1dual ll&J' -------__________ counter-

teit aone7.

4. With re•peot to oounterteit money, the bank teller'• job is to ___________ am •

s. '1he quickest way to apot 00\lnterfeit mone7 in a ataok ot blll.s ta _______________________ .._ ______ ~

6. Appearance..-d.a•• genuine mone7 ill obaraoteriaed by ___ _

&rd aoattered through it.

7• Two poriiom1 ot the portrait on a bill vhioh ehould be oheobd

tar 1hapnu• am cl18Unatnua an &Di

8. Tvo other portions ot a counterfeit bill which an oharaoteris­

tioall7 1rd1stinat an ant •

9. 1he &ban teeta are inldequat.a when ----------•

10. Another teat tor oountel"teit 1IJ lllde posaible thr0'1gb a knav•

ledge ot •

11. 1h• ~&it of ---------- !a tomd on the $5

bill.

12. 1be portrait of a taaou inftnt.Ol-t witer, an! u. s. ubun•

den- 1a fows:t on the $. bill. B1a nae 18 -------

--------------------·· 13. ------------'• pori.Z'ait la on the $20 bW.,

arr! a port!'ait ot ----------- ia on th9 $10 'f,!dll..

14. Out tint president•• Pioture ta on the $. blll.

ts~ 11!.e poptrait ot is depicted on

tb9 $2 bill.

16. Genenl. Grant ill ahown on the $ bill.

17• Cash regiaters utmal.l:;' do not have a place tar tb$ $ bill.

18.. On al.molt all bills tha portrait faces to th• a howeftr, the pioture of on the

$ bUl tao•• to the -------

19• A$ bill rd.ght easil;r be "rdst!d"to & $ bill.

.. ______________ __ Bxpaiaental hlalon "------

AnaweJI the tollcwing queetiona baaed on the •te~ial. which 10\1 haft

just reat.

1• En! produota ot th• aocou.nting •J*tea are oalled. •

z. P&Junt to aa eaplOJM tor work pertonec:l 1a 1n th• ton ot a

---------------------------------· 3. for p&JMnt purpoa•• empl.019• fall into two oategortes, ___________ ant-----------4. Pqaent. tor aate1'1ale w a.mou a t.tra ba8 receiwd 1e oalltd _________________________________ ,.

6. Bll18 ••nt ODt by a ftra an teohnicallJ' oalled ------·

?. SUoh bill• include two items ot information,.-------am __________________ _..

8. Another proc:tuot ot the aooounttnc •J8tesl evaluates the work ot

th• fiN'• •ales organisation. It 18 oalled the ------~ ______ _. an1 the intOrJDation prOTidad b7 it u baaed. on

---------a.rd/or _________ .,.. 9. 1'b1s aaae int01"t;At1on U7 be exprassG!d in t.Gns ot -----am/or ________________ __..

10. An organisation'• aaie. 11&J' be oategwised. aocOlding to __ _ ____ ._.., _______ _. or _______ _,.

11. Quantities of matwial.8 on hard are ahotm b7 the ____ _

36.

-----------• wo o•lled the--------------------------------· 12. '1h9 prot1tabU1t7 ot a fiN'• produot oaa be d•t.end.m4 fl'ca the __________________________________ __.

u. A projeot1on of fUtve tinanoial operaUona u tomd 1n the

_________ _. apnaaecl 1n term of ant.1o1patecl _______________________ an! _________________ __

1z.. Another noord, bued on intonation ft'm the PN"icaa projeo.

Uon an! oOftl'inc the .... periocl ot u., 1a the -----­

----------- whioh Jll'O'lid• a ompuoiaan betwea

projfftec! am aotual tinano1al operation.

ts. '1be reocml ot a finl'• finanoial. poe1t1on aa of a ovtain date

1a the wb1oh npopta the

tira'• on

that date.

t6. b old.118 ot credit.on apinat a t1ra are oal.l.ed -----

17. For 1nt0l"ll&t1on on tM ohanpa in a ftn'• ftnanoial i-ttion

arillinc troa regular bu1.mu opvationl, u.napnent mat nter to the ____________________________________ _

'J?.

JmI AmL.ll-6'J.-Jl2. 1964

2. Alter, M. Retention aa & 1"tlnat1on ot length ot Ntention intel'­

'f'al.1 intel.U.pnoe, an:t tnining tiaa. i• ES&Eaaei& Inst.not.,

1963, !t 'l-1?•

3• Alter, M., & SUvnman. Re &. '1'he response in programed inltruo•

t101'l. i.• me!!! Inst.wot • ., t962, 1' 55.78.

4. Alhol"ott.. s. c. Programmed 1Mtruot1on :ln Bra1lle. In~. i• !!!a· (\int, 1961, .u.. 46 .. 50.

5. Bruce, J. s. Appllecl reae&l'Ch on p.ropamed. Smtructioo at the

lut.un Kodak company. In Hughea,. J. L. (Bd.), !n?s!l!?Cl

learninc• j ontioal naiuaucm. Chioago& Muoational Methods.,

mo., 1963. Pp • .S9.st.

6. earr. w. J. A tunctiol'l&l &~18 ot s•lt-!.nstl'uot!onal de­

Tio••• In tumada1ne, Ae A., A Glaaer, R. (F.d&), l'!!o!:drJa .!!• AbiDH ID1 Jll91Zal\1!$l J,U?D1Dct A ·1smrot ~. Wu~

D. Cal BA, 1960. Pp. 540-,;62.

7• Caroll, J. B. Programed instra.otton an:t student ability. J.• J!oS!!!!4 Instruct., 19611 1t 7•11.

8. C&l'ti••• r. A. Caparison ot Oft!'t am oO'ftrt naponiina on a

Pl'oeramEld lesson. assigned as honmrorlt. .:!• pi-oea:mntld Inotruot.11

1963, !• 13-19.

9. Cronbaoh• J... I. Besmtial~ !! ESJ!!hologic!l, gstina• Ifft Yorkt

lat'per A Bl'other•t 1960. Pp. 80-62.

10. Cl'O'Hdert R. A. Automatio tutOl'illg b;r intrinaio prtopud.ng. In

39.

Imnsdaiae1 A. A., a Glaset a. (F.dl. ), ftachim maohinu !!!.

m:ol£!!!4 leunigt A source boo)S. WUhtngton, D. c.1 m,_ 1960. Pp. 286-298.

11. Danes, I. I. hogrammed 1earfting in the United Statee: Air

Force. P}'opaead. l'.Atand,ng, 1964,. ,1, tt:J-124•

12. Eldnd, D. a. tJae of P. I. at Vermont State Hospital. J!!­p:amsd Instf'ucte,. 196;, lt 9-11•

1,. P'Maant, J. M. Applloation of proci-Ulllled leaning tor deat

ohildnn to iniuatrial uita. A!!t· !!m• l2!!!t 1963, aos. 241-244.

14. ftkl1 A. I. Sa. treatment an:l population ftl'iable• in pro­

gramed instruction. i..· Sls.• P819bol., 1~ • .u. 1.sz-158.

15. FU.er, a. J., et al. O'npiblished bank teller traWng Pl'Oll"All•

R1obaoni1 Va.1 PsJOhologioal Comul.tante, Ino.

16. Fovler, B. Curiositz !!!! st?loratgrz behariOl"e In tork1

Haoldllan COJllP&D71 1965. Pp. 54-S6•

17. ft"7t E• B. A •tudJ' ot teaching machine response mod••• In

Iuudaine, A, Ao a Gluer, a, (Eds.)., Teaohing maoM!!!! !!!!. gogramec:t lffrn!ngl A •aura• book. Wahington, D. c •• m, 1960. Pp. 469-474.

18. Goldbeck, a. '·· a Campbell, v. •• 'lh• •ttects of P88pon11•

mode am response d.ittioulty on programed leaning. I.• educ.

PeDhqli•t 1962., ~ 110-118,

19• Gold.berg, M. B., Dawson, R. I., A Barrett• R. a, CORP&r1aoa ot

p.ropued ant oonventional inltruotion method.a. I.• !Jml•

faphol., 1964• !tf3 .. 110-U.4.

20. Budl.ton1 1. R. Etteota ot logical wrsua ran!oa eequenaing

40.

ot items in an autoinstruotional prograa unler two oonlitiona

ot ccrn!'t response. l• .!!!a• Ps;phol., 1964t ~ 2SS-266.

21. auu.,.. '· Programed leaning in emerging na.t.iona.

gruimed ?.a£!!1ng. 1964t 1t 31-47.

22. Holt, B. o. An explon.to17 atud7 ot th• us• ot a ••lt inatruo•

tion Pl'OIP"&tll in ba.aia electriolt.7. In Bugbee, I. L. (met.> ..

Prostamed learmnaa A orltioal naluatign. Chicagoa Qluoa.

tional Methods, Im •• 1963. Pp. 1.S-39.

23. Hughes, J. L., le McH&ada, w. J. A comparative •tud.7 ot pro­

graaad ard oonftnt.ional instructicm in industry. l• !221• Psyahol., 1961, ~ 22S...231.

24. Jenninp, c. B. beaentation tao~s d Cl'itical ..ui&blea in

l.earni.ng b7 proogra.m. guide, aM •elt-stud7. Vnpu.blisbecl

aasta•s t.heas..,. Un1nnity of Riohmotd, 1965.

2s. Kaufman, a. "· An expeimental naluation or the ~ol• of

remedial teedbaok in an 1nv1na1o program. l• ptovamed.

Instl'uct., 1963, .!- 21-30.

26. re,., c. M. Inrluet:r1al programmed imtnction 1n value control

training. In Ofiesh, Ge D., A Meierheney, We o. (Iida.),

t£erd~ !!l pogrammed instruction. W_.hington, D. c. t llEA,

1964. Pp. 107-109.

27• l'n1ght, M. A. G. 'Bl• Auto'J.'1w an:l olalsi-ooa 1natruct1ont

Seooni ot tbree ooapa.rative studies. ~og.r!!Jl!!b\ J.ear!!!nl•

1964, 1· 89.96. 28. t..utbe.rtt P. t ii.ill.er, D. M., A W1le7, D. B. ExperiJaantal. folk­

lore an:l experimentationa 'lb• atud7 ot progrUJ!lled learning

in the Wauwatosa pabllc 1ohoola. i• edug• aes.1 1962, i5,t

41.

48~91.

29. LU'ld..n, t. c., A X.1tb1 o. o. M. 1be etteotl ot Uneu ant

branohbg •thoda of ~--4 instruoUon on }N.Pld.ng am

ntent.ion ot a top1o 1n •l•enta.17 aote_..

I.earniM· t 964. .1t 12-16.

30. ~ a. a., • Bakv, 1. x.. It. aa:rublllc in a .. u-1n1u-.­

tJ.on&l. prosraa. S.• ~· Psrcbol., 196), .2,. t'B-14).

31. Jl!Molwa, J, 'D. An'osPM• in:hat.ri.&l Jll"OtP"l8'"'1 (pui_ Jlll'Mftt.t

ant iu~). In on .. h, o. D. 1 6 "9ierbenr7• w. c. (Sdl,),

Tr!!d• l!l prov.....t 1N~Uon· WaaM~. J>. c.1 BAt

1964. Pp. 105-106.

)2. >m-r1ll, c. s. h&Ohina uob1ftNI A ....n.... Panhol. !!!•• 1961,

g. 36)-)75.

33, O'Donnell, L. s. fJ'aWnc of pl&nt ope?at.ore ant a&1ntemnDe

penonn9l. In lu&M•. J. L. (!'.d. ), ftoir!"ed l!!!1l1ng1 6

£1tioal en.lua Uon. Ch14aco a 9!uoa Ucn&l Mitt.hod.I, Ina., 196). Pp. 111-126.

)4 • Popbaa, V • J, lcnel t.y erteotl of Pl"'oVUl'%.t 1mtnat.1on. ID

ot'iaah, o, D., a J'Jlierbea:r7, V. C. ( 3d..t. ) , tpend! in J!:!­

£--..d 1.Mt.l'UOU.O!J• Wa.ehin&Wn, D. C .1 SI., l ~. Pp.

197-200.

)S. Port.er,.. D, '!Mobac Macbi.nN, In tr-d•'Mt A. -'•• A CJ1.&Mp1

book• WUh.1.ncton. D. C,1 111.1 1960. Pp• 206...Ztlt,

)6, Porta', 1>. i arlUoal N"fiev ot a ,..Uon ot the llto'ratun on

teachinc dni.o•. Bv!!r4 .to2. Rn •• 1957, EU 126-tlt?.

"J?, PrMa.,-1 s. L. A ablple appantu 1lh1oh ci..,.. tMt.a and loon8 -

•z.

an:l te&ohea. In bmedainee A. •·• A Glaa•re R. (Fda. ),

ftlQbim llQMm• ADl prggwttpd ltarninc• ! lcmrot Wk·

Washington, D. c.1 EA. 1960. Pp. 35-41.

38e Pre11•7t s. ~ Teaching aoh1ne (am leaning th80J7) oruis.

l.· !l?P!• Pszaho1,. t96'.). ~ 1-6.

39. Roe, A. AutcmW teaching •thod• uing linear progrua. l.•

!W• Pl12hol., 1962, ~. 198-201.

40e Roe, Aet Muae7, Met Weltun, G., 6 L9edst De Automated yaoh­

!K method• uainc linear e:osrama, Rewt Di• ~12i· IM

Angel.eat Depatmnt ot Engineering, Uniwraity of Calitor'niae

1960.

41. Sohift, '· s. Qal,uaMMp f»n'umnt.elnt A wocu;ned 9QUUI

.At iultruqtign ill bedq 1&101 t.oghrdgu11. Rew Torka J. s.

Sobitt Al•ooU.t.8 1 1964.

44. Sohztama, w• PJ:orryed Wk»AtiQQ 1mu ADl tmenqv. 1md tor

the .A'dTanOeaent ot 'Eduoation, 1962.

43. SoJu. ... W • .lht. m•t.rM a WAG'lmC WtmA"gpa All MPAta•

~ bibliograJ?!!l. Waahingtcmt De C.1 u. s. Deputment ot Beal.the

Biuoation, ant Welt&Nt 1964.

44. Sent.el',. R. let IS.berg, A.,. Abaat J. s., A Morgan, R. J... An

naluation Of branch1.ng am JDOtifttionaJ. ~el in & 1019U­

bled book. Pz:ovumed teaming. 1964• 1• 124-tn.

45. Sil.be!"Jl&n, Be r., 1111.aJtagnot R. J., COllllon, J. I., 6 Eataft.n1

D. 1'1:nd eequenoe ft!"S\11 b!'anching autoinltruotional Mt.hod••

J.• ~· Pa;xobol.1 19611 St 166-172.

46. Sld.nner, B. Fe 1h• soieme of learning am the at of teachinc•

Karvud ~!!!·· 19~ .. !t· 86-97.

43.

47. Skinner, B. '• Teaching maobinea. f!cience, 19581 .1&§. 969·917•

48. Skinner, B. v. Teaohinc machines. Soient. ~ 1961, ~

90-107 (a).

49. Skinner, B. F. Wb7 we need tea.ch1ng machines. Reprint. lfflW

York• Appleton..c•ntury..Crotta, 1961 (b).

50. Skinnei-, B. F. Reneot1ons on a dtt0ade ot teaching uchinea.

~yhere CoUee Record,. 1963t ~ 168-177 •

51. Stenrt" D. L Comparative reae&l"Ch projeott Programed. inlt.no•

tion "II aoum slide:f'lln. Paper su'bmi tted to Prcduot ant Sales

Training Department, Lincoln-ifel'OUl'J' D1.S..ion1 Ford Motor

ComPGJV't 196). Reprint by AMA.

52. Stolurov, L. H. 1't!9h1ng, 1!x. Mehl.nth Washington, De Ce I tJ. s. Oovel"nment Printing Ottioe,. 1961.

53. Tobias, S• 1 le W.1~1 M. Ef'f'eot of J'Gsponse mod.9 on blaed1ate

an:i delayed recall tram PI"Ocramod material. i• e:ogamed.

imtruo\., 1963, !t e.13.

,54. T.rS.ttipoe,. w. J.1 TJ-it.t1poe1 T. G •• & Bahn, c. P. '!he etteot­

i'ftn&s1 of thrff pi-ogramed.-1.eaming tram• st7l••• l.• 1!:2-

Eamed; lnlltruo\. t 1963, !t 35-43.

SS. Wallia1 D.1 & Wiokt, R. P. 1'.he Royal Navy study. Pr~

!\eat'ning. 19641 1t 31-4?.

,56. Welsh, P •• Antonelli, J. A., & '.I.hayer, P. "'· An imuatr1'f'ide

1tud7 ot ~amed inst.ruction. i.• J!W• Psyghol;.1 1965,

!f2, 6t-6J.

fl• Wentwof'tht G. o., Montcomet'7t A. 1'•• Gonn, J. A., & Danell•

T. w • .J.!.1 aocountil)a m:ooessa A R£ORtaJ\ !2t selt instruot.109.

Wew Yorlu Moai-av-Hlll1 196).

44.

58. Willlus• J • P • Ccspa.r1son of eftfll"al response JlOd.es in a ft•

view program. J..• eduo. Psxcho'.L•t 1963,.. ~ 25)-260.

59• Williama, J. P. Etteoti,,..,_s of oonst?"\1.cted....-.sponse arr1

multiple-choice pi-ooouine; modes as a tunctton ot test inode.

i• educ. PslQhol., 1965, :l§., 111-117.

60. Winer,. s. J. ataY.iliaJ. m:1,noiplg1 ill mw:i.,AntJ:.1. tlflraia.

New Yorkt K'>Oraw-Hill, 1962.

VITA

Vita

'lhe author, Frederick Sale, Jr., was born in Richmord, Virgi­

nia, 1n 19391 ard he graduated from St. Christopher's high school in

June, 1957• 1'he following tall he entered the University ot Rich•

mord as a holder of a Bagle,- Scholarship. As an urdergraduate,, his

aotivities included canaging editor am start artist, am then edi­

tor-in-chief• ot the Richmond Collegian; ut ed1 tor ot the Massen­

.e.£,l vice-president and then president ot Phi Delta '!beta social

f'paternity; an! vice-president at¥:l then president or the s. c.

Mitchell Literary Society. Honors included P1 Delta Epsilon jour­

nalism honorary, Psi Chi psychology honorary, Scabbard &rd Blade

m1lit&t7 science honorary, Dean's List, Qd01"on Delta Kappa, and

Who's Who in American Colleges and Universities. He graduated 1n

1961 with a bachelor's degree in Psychology.

From June 1961 to June 1962 he did graduate work in Psycho­

logy at the University; then, in Jl'ebl'Uary 1963, he entered the u. s. ~. holding an RO'l'C commission as Second Lieutenant in the Infan­

try. While stationed at Fort Dix, New Jersey, he married the former

Miss Geraldine ltimonds ot Riohmord. On completion ot his lllilitary

obligation in August 196.S he returned to Riohmon:i and resumed g?"ad­

uate study in September at the University. He obtained a Master or

A?'ts degree in Psyohology in June 1966.

Plans tor ths tu.ture include the attaiment ot a Ph. D. degree

in In:!ustrial Psyoholo17.