This study was designed as one test for the assumption made by B. F. Skinner and other authors of programmed material that vanishing textual stimuli increase the efficiency of memorization. 34 fourth grade pupils were differentially treated using vanishing textual stimuli as the variable. The difference in retention between the two groups was not significant.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
HollandJ. G.SkinnerB. F.The analysis of behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961.
2.
KeislarE. R.McNeilJ. D.A comparison of two response modes in an auto-instructional program with children in the primary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1962, 53, 127–131.
3.
KrumboltzJ. D.WeismanR. G.The effect of overt versus covert responding to programmed instruction on immediate and delayed retention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1962, 53, 89–92.
4.
RothkopfE. Z.Automated teaching devices and a comparison of two variations of the method of adjusted learning. Psychological Reports, 1961, 8, 163–169.
5.
SkinnerB. F.The science of learning and the art of teaching. Harvard Educational Review, 1954, 24, 86–97.
6.
SkinnerB. F.Why we need teaching machines. Harvard Educational Review, 1961, 31, 389–390.
7.
StolurowL. M.WalterC. C.A comparison of overt and covert response in programmed learning. Journal of Educational Research, 1962, 55, 421–429.
