When learning outcomes from programmed instructional experiences are viewed in an information theory context, two hypotheses can be generated: (a) decrements in learning result when items of information are omitted from an experimental program and (b) decrements in learning result when information is omitted through the deletion of uncertainty from an experimental program. When Ss were tested over information obtained from linear programs modified to provide varying amounts of knowledge of results and amounts of certainty, support for both hypotheses was found.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AmmonsR. B.Effects of knowledge of performance: A survey and tentative formulation. Journal of General Psychology, 1956, 54, 279–299.
2.
AndersonR. C.Educational psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 1967, 18, 129–164.
3.
AttneaveF.Applications of information theory to psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1959.
4.
BourneL. E.Jr.PendletonR. B.Concept identification as a function of completeness and probability of information feedback. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1958, 56, 413–420.
5.
BushR. R.MostellerF.Stochastic models for learning. New York: Wiley, 1955.
6.
ChanskyN. M.Learning: A function of schedule and type of feedback. Psychological Reports, 1960, 7, 362.
7.
CoferC. N.AppleyM. H.Motivation: Theory and research. New York: Wiley, 1964.
8.
CoulsonJ. E.SilbermanH. F.Effects of three variables in a teaching machine. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1960, 51, 135–143.
9.
EigenL. D.MarguliesS.Response characteristics as a function of information level. Journal of Programmed Instruction, 1963, 2, 45–54.
10.
EstesW. K.BurkeC. J.A theory of stimulus variability in learning. Psychological Review, 1953, 60, 276–286.
11.
EvansJ. L.GlaserR.HommeL. E.An investigation of “teaching machine” variables using learning programs in symbolic logic. Journal of Educational Research, 1962, 55, 433–452.
12.
FeldmanM. E.Learning by programmed and text format at three levels of difficulty. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1965, 56, 133–139.
13.
FiksA. I.Some treatment and population variables in programed instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1964, 55, 152–158.
14.
GoldbeckR. A.CampbellV. N.The effects of response mode and response difficulty on programed learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1962, 53, 110–118.
15.
HilgardE. R.Theories of learning. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1956.
16.
HollandJ. G.Teaching machines: An application of principles from the laboratory. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1960, 3, 275–287.
17.
HollandJ. G.SkinnerB. F.The analysis of behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961.
18.
HullC. L.A behavior system: An introduction to behavior theory concerning the individual organism. New Haven: Yale Univer. Press, 1952.
19.
JacobsP. I.Item difficulty and programed learning. Journal of Programmed Instruction, 1963, 2, 21–38.
20.
JacobsP. I.KulkarniS.A test of some assumptions underlying programed instruction. Psychological Reports, 1966, 18, 103–110.
21.
KrumboltzJ. D.WeismanR. G.The effect of intermittent confirmation in programed instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1962, 53, 250–253.
22.
LubinS. C.Reinforcement schedules, scholastic aptitude, autonomy need, and achievement in a programed course. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1965, 56, 295–302.
23.
LumsdaineA. A.GlaserR., (Eds.) Teaching machines and programed learning: A source book. Washington, D. C: Natl Educ. Assn, 1960.
24.
MooreJ. W.SmithW. I.Knowledge of results in self-teaching spelling. Psychological Reports, 1961, 9, 717–726.
25.
MooreJ. W.SmithW. I.Role of knowledge of results in programed instruction. Psychological Reports, 1964, 14, 407–423.
26.
MoselJ. N.GrossnickleW. F.Associative learning and differential information in knowledge of results. Psychological Reports, 1963, 13, 381–382.
27.
RoeA.MasseyM.WeltmanG.LeedsD.Automated teaching methods using linear programs. Los Angeles: Univer. of California, Department of Engineering, 1960. (Report No. 60-105) [Cited by JacobsP. I., Item difficulty and programed learning. Journal of Programmed Instruction, 1963, 2, 21–38.]
28.
RosenstockE. H.MooreJ. W.SmithW.Effects of several schedules of knowledge of results on mathematical achievement. Psychological Reports, 1965, 17, 535–541.
29.
SaxG.Concept acquisition as a function of differing schedules and delays of reinforcement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1960, 51, 32–36.
30.
SilbermanH. F.MelaragnoR. J.CoulsonJ. E.EstavanD.Fixed sequences versus branching auto-instructional methods. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1961, 52, 166–172.
31.
SilvermanR. E.AlterM.Note on the response in teaching machine programs. Psychological Reports, 1960, 7, 496.
32.
SkinnerB. F.The science of learning and the art of teaching. Harvard Educational Review, 1954, 24, 86–97.
