51 regularly enrolled law students in 3 matched groups were taught a portion of criminal law after pretesting. The analysis of covariance on the posttests showed that a program designed to teach content and application was superior (p < .01) to both the traditional teaching method and a program designed to teach content alone. Both programs were superior (p < .01) to the traditional method in teaching either content or ability to apply content. It was concluded that the acquisition and application of complex abstract material can be taught efficiently with programmed material.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
DertkeM.WillsT. A.Investigation of the use of programmed instruction in legal education. J. legal Educ., 1963, 15, 444–455.
2.
HarnoA. J.Cases and materials on criminal law and procedure. Chicago: Callaghan, 1957.
3.
KeislarE.The development of understanding in arithmetic by a teaching machine. J. educ. Psychol., 1959, 50, 247–253.
4.
KelsoC. D.Science and our teaching methods: harmony or discord?J. legal Educ., 1960, 13, 183–186.
5.
KelsoC. D.Programming shows promise for training lawyers: a report on an experiment. J. legal Educ., 1961, 14, 243–248.
6.
McNemarQ.Psychological statistics. New York: Wiley, 1962.
7.
MillerJ.Handbook of criminal law. St. Paul, Minn.: West, 1934.
