NotesFAQContact Us
Collection
Advanced
Search Tips
ERIC Number: ED013538
Record Type: RIE
Publication Date: 1967-May-18
Pages: 45
Abstractor: N/A
Reference Count: 0
ISBN: N/A
ISSN: N/A
THE RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF SUPPLEMENTING PROGRAMED INSTRUCTION WITH BLOCKED VERSUS SPACED REVIEW.
SCANLON, JAMES A.; TOM, FREDERICK K.T.
NINTH GRADE STUDENTS ENROLLED IN FIRST-YEAR VOCATIONAL AGRICULTURE IN TWENTY-SEVEN NEW YORK SCHOOLS MADE UP THE SAMPLE. TEACHERS WERE CONTACTED BY MAIL, SUPPLIED WITH THE MATERIALS AND INSTRUCTIONS, AND DID THE ACTUAL ADMINISTERING OF THE TREATMENTS. INTACT CLASSES WERE RANDOMLY ASSIGNED TO ONE OF THREE CONDITIONS. GROUP 1 RECEIVED PROGRAMED INSTRUCTION PLUS BLOCKED REVIEW. GROUP 2 RECEIVED THE PROGRAM PLUS SPACED REVIEW, AND GROUP 3 THE PROGRAM ALONE. REVIEW WAS PROVIDED BY A SPECIALLY CONSTRUCTED FILMSTRIP. WITH SPACED REVIEW, RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE FILM WERE SHOWN AFTER EACH SECTION OF THE PROGRAM WAS COVERED. WITH BLOCKED REVIEW THE ENTIRE FILM WAS SHOWN AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE PROGRAM. THE PROGRAMED TEXTS REQUIRED FROM FIVE TO SEVEN HOURS TO COMPLETE. ALL STUDENTS WERE TESTED FOR AMOUNT LEARNED USING A PAPER-AND-PENCIL TEST CONSTRUCTED BY THE AUTHOR. THEY WERE RE-TESTED FOR RETENTION THIRTY DAYS LATER. THE DATA WERE ANALYZED USING ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE WITH SCORES FROM A READING TEST AS THE COVARIANT. THE RESULTS DID NOT SUPPORT THE HYPOTHESES. THE ADDITION OF REVIEW TO THE PROGRAMED INSTRUCTION DID NOT LEAD TO SIGNIFICANTLY GREATER LEARNING. BLOCKED REVIEW PROVED BETTER THAN SPACED REVIEW (THE REVERSE OF WHAT WAS HYPOTHESIZED). AND NO DIFFERENCES WERE FOUND BETWEEN TREATMENTS ON THE TEST FOR DELAYED RETENTION. (THE APPENDICES TO THIS STUDY WERE DELETED FROM THIS FINAL REPORT. THEY ARE AVAILABLE FROM THE CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY.) (RG)
Publication Type: N/A
Education Level: N/A
Audience: N/A
Language: N/A
Sponsor: N/A
Authoring Institution: Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY.
Identifiers: N/A