Yerkes-Dodson law suggests an optimal level of arousal for the best performance in learning tasks. Ideally, the instructors’ expectations should match the abilities and inabilities of students. This study proposes a theory that challenges students optimally and continually over the course of teaching and learning, with proofs using both theoretical and classroom examples. The theory of sustained optimal challenge facilitates student learning by achieving primarily three objectives: (1) continually adjusts the speed and content difficulty levels over the course of teaching and learning; (2) matches the instructors’ expectations with the students’ aptitudes (abilities and inabilities); and (3) finally, reduces the variation in student learning. The effect of central limit theorem, teaching and learning theories, learning outcomes, and student feedback supported the proposed theory in a wide range of disciplines, including, Statistics, Mechanics, Quality, and Ergonomics. Sustained optimal challenges were observed in most courses taught utilizing the proposed theory.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamsW. J. (2009). The life and times of the central limit theorem. Providence, R.I.; [London]: American Mathematical Society ; London Mathematical Society.
2.
AngeloT. A.CrossK. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
3.
BeattyI. D. (2005). Transforming student learning with classroom communication systems. arXiv preprint physics/0508129.
4.
BlackP.WiliamD. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: principles, policy & practice, 5(1), 7-74.
5.
BlanchardB. S.FabryckyW. J. (2014). Systems engineering and analysis. Essex: Pearson.
6.
BloomB. S. (1968). Learning for Mastery. Instruction and Curriculum. Regional Education Laboratory for the Carolinas and Virginia, Topical Papers and Reprints, Number 1. Evaluation comment, 1(2), n2.
7.
BritzmanD. P. (2012). Practice makes practice: A critical study of learning to teach: Suny Press.
8.
CarrollJ. B. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers college record.
9.
CliffordM. M. (1990). Students need challenge, not easy success. Educational Leadership, 48(1), 22-26.
10.
CochranW. G. (2007). Sampling techniques: John Wiley & Sons.
11.
FinkL. D. (2013). Creating significant learning experiences : an integrated approach to designing college courses. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
12.
FletcherJ. M.DentonC.FrancisD. J. (2005). Validity of Alternative Approaches for the Identification of Learning Disabilities Operationalizing Unexpected Underachievement. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(6), 545-552.
13.
GeeJ. P. (2005). Learning by design: Good video games as learning machines. E-Learning and Digital Media, 2(1), 5-16.
14.
GuskeyT. R. (2007). Closing achievement gaps: revisiting Benjamin S. Bloom’s “Learning for Mastery”. Journal of Advanced Academics, 19(1), 8-31.
15.
KarpickeJ. D.RoedigerH. L. (2008). The critical importance of retrieval for learning. science, 319(5865), 966-968.
16.
KellerJ. M. (1987). Strategies for stimulating the motivation to learn. Performance Improvement, 26(8), 1-7.
17.
Ladson-BillingsG. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding achievement in US schools. Educational researcher, 35(7), 3-12.
18.
LiebermanG. A.HoodyL. L. (1998). Closing the Achievement Gap: Using the Environment as an Integrating Context for Learning. Executive Summary.
19.
MasaakiI. (1986). Kaizen: The key to Japan’s competitive success. New York, ltd: McGraw-Hill.
20.
MeierD. (2004). Many children left behind: How the No Child Left Behind Act is damaging our children and our schools: Beacon Press.
21.
NicolD. J.Macfarlane-DickD. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in higher education, 31(2), 199-218.
22.
OrfieldG.LosenD.WaldJ.SwansonC. B. (2004). Losing our future: How minority youth are being left behind by the graduation rate crisis.
23.
OwenA. B. (1992). A central limit theorem for Latin hypercube sampling. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 541-551.
24.
RosenblattM. (1956). A central limit theorem and a strong mixing condition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 42(1), 43-47.
25.
ShuminK. (2002). Factors to consider: Developing adult EFL students’ speaking abilities. Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice, 12, 204-211.
26.
TobiasS. (1994). Interest, prior knowledge, and learning. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 37-54.
27.
TomlinsonC. A. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners: Ascd.
28.
WayneD. B.BarsukJ. H.O’LearyK. J.FudalaM. J.McGaghieW. C. (2008). Mastery learning of thoracentesis skills by internal medicine residents using simulation technology and deliberate practice. Journal of Hospital Medicine, 3(1), 48-54.
29.
WigginsG. P.McTigheJ. (2005). Understanding by design: Assn. for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
30.
YerkesR. M.DodsonJ. D. (1908). The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit-formation. Journal of comparative neurology and psychology, 18(5), 459-482.
31.
ZimmermanB. J.DibenedettoM. K. (2008). Mastery learning and assessment: Implications for students and teachers in an era of high-stakes testing. Psychology in the Schools, 45(3), 206-216.
32.
ZiomekR. L.SvecJ. C. (1997). High school grades and achievement: Evidence of grade inflation. NASSP Bulletin, 81(587), 105-113.
