DocumIT RES_

RD 200 572 SP 017 631

AUTHOR Levin, Tamar; Long, Ruth
TITLE Effective Instruction.
INSTITUTION Association for Supervision and Curricu
Development, Alexandria, va.
REPORT NO ISBN-0-87120-105-4
PUB DATE 81
NOTE 113p.
AVLILABLE FROM Association for Supervision Cur- -uum
Development, 225 North Washington Street, Alexandria
VA 22314 (Stock No. 611-30212, $6.50).
EDE'S PRICE MF01 Plus Postage. PC Not Available from EDRS.
DESO -PTOES Classroom Environment: *Classroom Techniques;
Curriculum Development: Educational Trends;
Elementary Secondary Education; inservice Ieacher
Education: *Instructional Design; *instructional
Improvement; *Teacher Effectiveness; Teacner
Evaluation; Teacher Response: *Teaching Kills; Time
Factors (Learning)
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this book is to share successful
instructional and learning processes with educators. The focus is on
three type; of variables in classroom learning and instruction: (1)
active learning time: (2) feedback and corrective procedures; and (31
instructional cues. The literature on the nature of each variable is
discussed, and the conditions for successful implementation, the
reasons for their powerful effects on learning, and the dmtferent
ways they can be used are outlined. A section on evaluating
instruction examines the roles of classroom observation, rating
scales, student questionnaires, content analysis and techniques for
self examination. A review of the implications arising from new
demands on the educational system cites the classroom climate and the
concept of individual differences as major areas that need research.
An annotated bibliography of research articles written since 1960
emphasizes the feasibility of implementing the ideas discussed in the
hook- (Fly)

0******************** ****** ********************* ****************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
* from the original document.
**************YA*********************************** * *******
.-1

1'1

Z 0Z

. t ,,
- L

'a *I L',I
0

7-.Ij

/
 Effective
Instruction
Tamar Levin with Ruth Long

A j
The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
225 North VVashingtor Street Alexandria, Virginia 22314
Fditing:
Ronald S. Brandt. AS_ EwwGermer
carter Lduor
Desien: Great. Incorporated
Cops right 2 1981 By the .-Nssociation pr : r &on an Curriculum De
opment
All ruzhts reserved. No part ot this public:won may he reproduced or tra
muted in any form or hs an means. r:!lectroluc or meehanical. including photo-
cor\ record:n% or any intorm.won storage re!:-;L's al 'n ssithout per-
mission in ssraing fro it the publisher.
The materials printed '!rein are the espressions w the ssriter £dn neev
sank: a statement of polit; of the Association.
Stock Number: 611-80212
Library of Congress Catalog Card Numher: SO207
ISBN 0-87120-105-4
Contents
Foreword/ iv
Barbara a
Preface/ v
Benjamin S. Bloom
Introduction /viii
1. Active Learning Time/
2. Feedback-Corrective Procedures/ 14
3. Instructional Cues / 26
4. Evaluating Instruction / 38
5. Implications for Teaching and Learning/54
Annotated Bibliography/64
References / 88
About the Authors/101
Foreword
his is an inciting hook. Exciting because it speaks to that age-old request
th.it permeates ever\ setwol in America and ey cry room where her,.
gather: Aldo nie to he a better teacher.-
All too often. the books designed to minister to that deop-Ielt need of
teachers are full (.11jargcn, unresearLhed concepts. and treoric mr teach-
ers tell us look magniricent front behind a professor's desk. 1-ut which fail
rhiserahly in the marketplacethe classroom. All too often those same
bou,ks are 0.1-1M2n 'n an oi tuse. ontuseated stNie It d haul
mniI the
throwing up his or her hands in horror after reading only a few pages. If we
might paraphrase Winston Churchill. it is probably true in education that
so very much is written by so very many to he read by so very few. It is one
of the tragedies of this profession that. while charged with being the prime
communicators in our society we seldom come near living up to what
is exnected of us.
Tamar Levin has compiled a book dealing whit the classroom vari-
ables which, research throughout the world has shown, have the most tell-
ing impact on learning. She and Ruth Long report these studies in a clear,
Concise, prose which cuts through to the heart of the research and isolates
the essential qualities for the reader. Teachers searching for new ideas to
help their own teaching will learn, for example. that research shows that
students who are more involved in the learning process invariably take
seats near the teacher. The s;mple task of changing seating assignments
periodically may help expand the circle of active learners in a given class-
room. Teachers may also recognize themselves as the authors describe how
students react if they realize they may he called on to answer a question as
opposed to their actions if they arc reasonably sure they will not he singled
out that particular day. It is interesting that this exact situation has been
the subject of a nationally-syndicated comic strip recently. That comic strip
had the student, who was unprepared to answer questions on the day's

iv
 I pi,in.k.111.2_
i:n 1;

n:L1j i 1),,r .1 i!uk.-

Ii n\TL[I:r1 ill111:111411! !HA tOr

h'r c!.k,
I

nn nnJ r.-ro,.1,1,- thin

!

I t n oil,: or th,,

II RL !IL!' IT! !!1,.. [11,

th11
!E:(1.1\11,11.1,C1 tinuNn \A

trom No0,.. 1, c\cith,.1 11,y ,c .1 ,tuki% ilIn ink

trorn inr,-,Ictro2m hnin in in !IiLtri.ikiLL:1

ASt 1) 11,1, iinpor11 hk Qr thc2

:1:1o!!-Icr

\ R 1.)

L'ar,17 and

V
Preface
This hook has vn oil project of the International Associa-
fo; all la! Achievement (ILA). This world-
wide or4anilation ha st two decades, carried out large interna-
tional studies to determi e the effects of home. school, teachers, instruction,
and the curriculum on the cognitive and affective outcomes of student
learning in different school subjects, It was evident in all these studies that
the interaction bellvccri leachcrY and .chide lltS in the classroom was the
major factor in accounting for the cognitive learning of the students, their
inter.:st in the school subjeets and school learning, and their confidence in
the;: own learning capabilities.
At the request of most of the participating countries, IEA agreed to
sponsor an international stue . of the factors in the classroom which are
most important for the impro\ement of student achievement. interests, and
attitudes. The major concern of the countries was to identify and study
those classroom processes which have been responsible for the major
learning differences among students within a classroom, which account for
the differences in student achievement among the classrooms in a nation, as
well as the achievement differences between the nations. The national
representatives in the lEA were especially interested in those classroom
processes which could be readily used by a teacher and which could
clearly he demonstrated to improve the learning of most of the students in
as short a period of time as three months.
Dr. Tamar Levin, of the School of Education of Tel Aviv University,
was appointed as the International Coordinator for this classroom learning
study. She and her assistants developed the overall plan for the study which
will involve classrooms in about 15 nations. She also prepared a lengthy
detailed report in which she reviewed the research findings throughout the
world on the classroom variables and processes wIich have the greatest
effects on learning in each of the countries. kt is evident that a small
vi
tnittibetr t:tetse triaitt!es and nroeesses itait.e aft. 'Nt equally great elTects
e.Leh eouhtrie ior;: the h:o.e been studied.
its :11L-rW%._.':- y,iziot%d .-Ndk,ory CommittLe tor this study.
I titiiis nitieh :au-tressed h the elarity of the eyiiiience on the variables, I
Litteti.1 Dr. Loin to w rite a ,11,,r-!,:r book w hi,'11 would enable teachers
t±,nLi,liout, the %%or-Li t., learn about ttiese very era., toe if.iriables and
pt-itees,es and to them explore the use of these variables in their on
classroom, She has done a kilitul writing io'n ia wtheh she explains each
ot the or,)cessesi Lttc ¼ iv e are so important. and summarizes the
eit, silence on the etteetr,eness of the proeo,sos on student learning. She also
oifeits sue hes:ton s to teachers Ek) help them explore the use of these pro-

Kiwi:tier, no iThAtM: how she has presented the case for each
ot these niaietessesi they are slid only inert ideas on paper. They can conic
ki tx:::1 their full potentiality only when the are adapted to the needs
,t:assritom h the teacher luLl then actually useia with the studonts
in the i It is niv hope th.it all readers of this hook will be inspired to
tr tac,e processes in their on classrooms for even as short a period as a
tetiti weess,
But I doubt that s,ilitaii readers of this book can, on their own. make:
full use of these ideas. \\ hat is likely to be Very effective is an informal trio
or quartet of teachers who meet on their own a few times to read and
discuss the ideas in this book. Such is trio or quartet ideally should be
composed ot leather triends, It might even include tei,ichers who teach at
di:retreat leyels of edtwation from the kindergtirten to the etraduate and
professional schools.
Fhese teachers should try to determine the extent to which they
alread% ue these processes in their classrooms. 'Flien they should discuss
sortie of then- inehly su,ve,;sful as well as unsuccessful classroom instances
or students) to determine whether these processes can explain both the
positive and negative examples in their own classrooms. If the discussion
has gone this far, the teachers should attempt to use these processes for a
few sessions in their own classes, If these prove to he pcsitive, the teachers
should then attempt to use them for an entire quarter or semester, observing
very irefully some of the elleets they htive on the improvement of leamine,
interests, and attitudes in each of their students.

BENJAMIN S. BLOOM.
Di)EltiVaisheil Service Professor
of Education
University of Chicago

vii
Introduction
A small number cif instructional and learning processes have consistently
made major improvements in the learning of most students in a class or
school. The major purpose of this book is to share these findings with
those v. ho are responsible for educating students, whether they are cur-
riculum developers. supervisors, administrators, policy makers, educational
researchers, or teachers. If teachers can adapt these ideas to their own
classrooms. student achievement should improve significantly.
The hook focuses on three types of variables in classroom learning
and instruction: I active learning time, (2) feedback and corrective
1

rocedures, and 1 3) instructional cues. Strong research evidence led us to

recognize the powerful effects of these variables in determining school
learning. Each variable makes a unique contribution to the quality of the
process and outcomes of learning. They also share three characteristics.
First. they are highly related to student learning outcomes. Second, they
are alterable, and their effects can be observed within a relatively short
time. Third, the variables can be used effectively by teachers at any level
of education and in any subject area.
We describe the nature of each of the variables and the conditions
under which they are likely to determine successful learning for most
students in a class. We also explain why these variables have such power-
ful effects on learning and how a teacher can use them in many different
ways to improve instruction and learning. These ideas and procedures
allow freedom for each teacher to select and develop a variety of tech-
niques for manaeing effective learning in the classroom. But they can be
effective only if teachers understand them and adapt them to the needs of
their students.
If the teacher is successful in implementing one or more of these proc-
esses, there should be noticeable differences in students (increased achieve-
ment, positive attitudes, greater interest in and motivation for learning)

viii
within a l r 6d. I iiicherii, ako 1 _nice (heir n
i

creased ntidencw and enthu,i,ism about

There are. of course. other 1..tria5lei.; :Lind proeeii;se, that lern
e and instruL:tion. hut in hook ke discus', the feki. m G»»w:ndrme
se rni t are yhGedp modwethexe catc,t

ix
 Active Learning Time
Students differ in the degree to which they actively learn. Some students
spend most of their time in class actively involved while others spend much
of the time davdre,iming, looking out the window, or involved in activities
unrelated to learning. An observer can translate these actions into estimates
of the percent of time each student is actively engaged in classroom learn-
ing, which is an index of the degree of the student's involvement in learn-
ing. Although students may spend equal amounts of time in class, they
vary greatly in their involvement (Boyden, 1975; Dennison, 1976; Fib ly
and others, 1977; Gump, 1971).
The degree of such involvement, however, is not always easily
observable. A student may take appropriate notes, carry out written
exercises, and express interest. This participation is overt and observable.
It is possible for another studs .t to be equally involved and highly in-
terested, yet in a manner that is covert and not easily observed. This second
student follows the teacher's explanations, relates than to what he or she
already knows, and figures out solutions to particular exercises. Overt
(observable) and covert (unobservable) types of involvement in learning
both manifest active learning. Ideally, the amount of time a student is ac-
tively engaged in learning should be determined by the degree of both
cover. and overt involvement.
Teachers are aware that active involvement in classroom learning
is necessary for effective learning and achieving desired outcomes. They
expect students who are highly involved in learning activities, who spend
more time learning in the classroom, to do well on tests, have more in-
terest in the subject, and have a positive view of themselves in relation to
learning. In contrast, they expect students who spend little time in class-
room learning to do poorly on tests, have little interest in school, and have
a negative view about themselves, especially as learners.
Active learning time as a measure of student involvement in class has

1
 2 EFFEC'TIV'E INSTRUCTION

long been considered by educators and researchers to be central and vital

to instruction. As early as 1884, Currie believed:
The art of teaching . . . comprehends all the means by which a teacher

sustains the attention of his class. By attention we do not mean the mere
absence of noise . . . or that inert passive state in which the class ... gives
no symptom of mental life. . . . The only satisfactory attention is that
which is given voluntarily and steadily by all during the entire instruction,
and in which the mental attitude of the class is actively engaged along
with the teacher in working out their own instruction.
Almost a hundred years later, in searching for promising directions to im-
prove educational achievement, the 1978 report of the National Academy
of Education stressed that "the answer to the question of how schools can
improve educational attainment lies in spending more time on those attain-
ments we value. There is a striking convergence of evidence that points to
the role of time-on-task---"engaged timein improving performance in
school subject matters."

The Relationship Between Active Learning Time

and Achievement
One way of studying the relationship between the degree of students'
active involvement in learning and their achievement is to observe selected
croups of students in one ciassroomstudents the teacher identifies as
good or poor achieversand examine the differences in their degree of
involvement. Then it is also possible to compare their degree of involve-
ment to their achievement. Studies that have used either one of these ap-
proaches (Good and Beckerrnan, 1978; Perkils, 1965) generally demon-
strate that, within a classroom, students who are more involved in their
learning have higher achievement than ,students who are less involved in
classroom learning activities.
For example, high and low achieving students were observed working
on their own, in study groups, and studying under the guidance of their
teacher (Levin and others, 1980). While high achievers were actively
involved in learning for 70 percent of the time, students who were identi-
fied as low achievers were actively involved in learning only 50 percent of
the time. Williams (1970) identified students as "participants," "inter-
mediate participants;" or "nonparticipants" based on their amount of overt
participation in class. When these groups were compared in terms of
achievement, Williams found significant differences among them.
Numerous studies have used an overt measure of student involvement
(Attwell and others, 1967; Berliner, 1979; Cobb, 1970, 1972; Edminston
and Rhoades, 1959; Gayer and Richards, 1979; Lahaderne, 1968; Morsh,
 ACTIVE LEARNING TIME

1956; Olson, 1931; Samuels and Turnure, 1974; Stallings. 1976; Stallings
and Kaskowitz. 1974; Turnure and Samuels. 19721. They typically found a
correlation between student involvement and achievement.
Other studies have used covert measures of student involvement
(Krauskopf. 1963; Siegel and others, 1963)- or both overt and covert
measures of involvement (Hudgins, 1966; Ozcelik, 1973). The covert
measure, based on the stimulated recall technique developed by Bloom
(1953) requires students to recall the thoughts they had at various critical
points during a class session. Their responses then are classified as either
relevant or irrelevant to the learning.
For example, Siegel and others (1963) studied the relationship of
college students relevant thinking to their achievement. Students were re-
corded on video tape while listening to a 20-minute lecture. A correlation
was found between the degree of relevant thinking and the items that
tested students' understanding of the major ideas presented during the
lecture. In contrast, no correlation was found between their relevant think-
ing and the test items that reflected knowledge they acquired outside the
classroom. The discrepancy between the correlations indicates that a
covert measure of student involvement in classroom instruction is indeed a
good, predictor of student success in the learning that takes place in the
class_ room.
Other research focuses on the relationship between the average degree
of participation in different classes and their mean performance levels.
These relationships are established between classrooms. Within a class,
those students who spend more time on active learning attain higher levels
of achievement than do students who spend less time involved in the learn-
ing. Likewise. classes in which students spend r- :-e time involved in learn-
ing achieve higher levels of performance than classes in which students
spend less time actually involved in learning It is evident that more active
learning time results in greater learning.

Variability in Active Learning Time

Differences in degree of involvement are hiLthly related to student
characteristics. Typically, aptitude or intelligence scores measure cognitive
characteristics of students, while motivation, self-esteem, or confidence
measure students' affective characteristics. Williams James (1890) made
one of the earliest attempts to explain the great variation in participation.
He identified student interest as the chief determinant influencing the
degree of active learning. Recent studies demonstrate the correlation be-
tween such affective measures as self-concept or attitudes toward schools
and stu_!nt involvement (Anderson, 1973; Ozcelik, 1973; Block, 1970;
4 EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION

Lahaderne, 1968; Hecht, 1977). In the past, such evidence was taken as
an indication that active student learning time is determined by unalterable
student characteristics. If such stable characteristics as intelligence or
aptitude scores do determine students' degree of involvement, then there is
little that schools and teachers can do to increase active learning time.
But every teacher knows that in real classroom situations students
who are most involved in learning are not always those with high aptitude
scores, nor are students who are less involved always the ones with lower
scores. Other student characteristics may be more important in determining
the degree of involvement.
In his model of school learning, Carroll (1963) defined active learn-
ing time as the central variable in school learning and differentiated be-
tween time allowed for students to learn (elapsed time) and time students
are actually involved in learning (active learning time). Carroll hypothe-
sized that if each student is allowed to spend the time needed to learn
something to a predetermined criterion, then the student should be able to
attain the required level of achievement, provided that he or she uses that
time. Conversely, if a student is not allowed enough time or does not spend
the required time, then he or she would most probably fail to attain the
desired level of achievement. Carroll essentially proposed that the degree
of school learning is determined by the amount of time the student actually
spends in learning relative to the time he or she needs to spend.
In contrast, Bloom (1968) conceptualized students' involvement in
learning as a function of their relevant affective and cognitive characteris-
tics. These are the prerequisite skills and knowledge that the student needs
to possess before learning a specific new task. The relevant affective char-
acteristics are motivation for learning, attitudes toward school, and the
student's self-concept as a learner (Anderson, 1973; Block, 1970; Ozcelik,
1973; Hecht, 1977). Research suggests two conditions under which we can
increase the degree of student involvement in learning: first, instructional
processes should evoke those activities of the student that are relevant to
the learning task and, second, the student should be motivated to learn
and possess the appropriate prerequisites needed to learn a particular task.

The Effects of Instructional Conditions on Involvement

Several studies have examined whether active learning time or student
involvement in learning can be altered by particular instructional tech-
niques or processes. Most of the studies were carried out under conditions
similar to regular classroom situations and examined a different aspect of
the instructional learning processes.
 ACTIVE LEARNING TIME 5

Two of the earliest experimental studies in this area were by Van

Wagenen and Travers (1963) and by Travers and others (1964). In the
Van Wagenen and Travers study, the teacher taught German vocabulary
to fourth, fifth, or sixth-graders for three consecutive days. Only half the
students were called on in class. These students learned by recitation and
were verbally reinforced for their responses. The other half were able to
observe only the cards and performance of the students who interacted
with the teacher and the materials.
Each day of the experiment the two groups were given an achieve-
ment test: The participant students performed better than the nonpartici-
pant students; moreover, the difference in achievement between. the two
groups increased from the first to the third day of the experiment. In this
study, direct interaction with the learning materials and the teacher pro-
duced higher levels of achievement than merely listening to or watching
the interaction.
Vohs (1964) constructed learning situations that were intended to
decrease the amount and quality of student involvement. Four study groups
were required to listen to a speech. During the speech one group of stu-
dents listened without being cl;stractek a second group was instructed
to draw a line through every letter "e" in a textbook; a third group carried
out specific instructions to draw rows of geometric figures; and the fourth
group did simple arithmetic operations. The group of students who listened
to the speech without distractions had higher achievement over the content
of the speech than had the other groups. Each succeeding distraction de-
creased the amount and quality of time spent listening to the speech.
Carroll and Spearitt (1967) studied whether the quality of instruc-
tional materials affects the degree of student involvement in learning. They
used two sets of instructional materials. One emphasized a high quality of
instructional information. A new language rule was presented to the stu-
dents, who were tested before the next rule was presented. When they made
mistakes. they returned to the page on which the rules were fully ex-
plained. The learning materials were clear and organized. In contrast, the
second set of instructional materials provided too much information at
one time and in a disorganized manner. When students made errors they
referred to explanations that were inadequate. When the instructional
materials were clear and organized, students were more likely to be actively
involved in their learning. They tended to lose interest and to spend less
time actively involved in lea.-ning when the instructional materials were
unclear.
Several researchers studied the effects of particular types of instruc-
tional settings on the degree of student involvement in learning (Good and
Beckerman, 1978; Kounine and Gump, 1974; McDonald, 1976; Anderson
6 EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION

and Scott. 1978; Stallings and Kaskowit . 1974). In general, these studies
indicate that some instructional settings tend to minimize involvement for
the majority of students. In particular, small study groups without adult
supervision produce very low levels of student involvement in learning,
but group discussions supervised by teachers produce a higher degree of
involvement.
Reinforcement can also increase individual students' participation in
group learning situations (Bushnell and others, 1968; Chadwick and Day,
1971; Hops and Cobb, 1972; Packard, 1970; Walker and others, 1969).
Ferritor and others (1972) were able to increase the amount of time stu-
dents were actively involved by reinforcing them for being on task and
doing arithmetic problems correctly. Although researchers differ greatly in
their approaches, they all indicate that student involvement can be signifi-
cantly altered. They demonstrate that selectively providing or depriving
students of certain conditions can directly increase or decrease the active
learning time of individual students or the level of involvement of the
entire class.
All the studies share one underlying principle. If instructional proc-
esses and procedures elicit student behavior relevant to the learning task,
student involvementis likely to increase. In contrast, if the instructional
conditions shift student attention from the main foci of the learning task,
or if the instruction is misleading or disturbing, then active learning time is
likely to decrease to a substantial degree. Thus. instructional conditions as
well as explanations and directions for learning have the potential to alter
student involvement in learning.

The Effects of Preparation on Involvement

Student involvement depend; also on some of the characteristics that
students bring to a learning situation. For instance, if we were required to
sit in a class and learn complex new subject matter without adequate prior
preparation, we might have great difficulty learning the subject matter,
regardless of how good the instruction is. And, most likely, we would find
it difficult to become actively involved in the class.
Each new learning task requires some cognitive prerequisites on the
part of the student. These prerequisites help students relate new ideas,
skills,-or procedures to what they already know, and better understand the
instruction.
In the past, research emphasized the differences between fast and slow
students (Ellson and others, 1965; Lloyd, 1971; Sheppard and Mac-
Dermot, 1970; Shimron, 1976; Steg and others, 1968; Zeaman and House,
 ACTIVE LEARNING TIME 7

1963, 1967). In general, the findings demonstrate that slow learners take
much more time to get started on learning activities than do faster learners.
Zeaman and House (1963) stressed that "the difference between fast and
slow learners is not so much the rate at which improvement takes place,
once it starts, but rather the number of trials for learning to start" (p. 162).
What are the differences between groups of students that enable one
group to get involved immediately in the learning while the other .group
delays? Will simply providing more time help slow students participate
actively in learning? How can we decrease procrastination as instruction
begins?
Most of the studies on the relationship between student characteristics
and student involvement were carried out within the framework of the
mastery learning strategy. They typically involve a group of students learn-
ing certain materials organized in a series of units or chapters in a text;
students are expected to achieve a preset performance level at the end of
each learning unit. Students who do not attain the predetermined mastery
level are usually given additional time and help in the form of alternate
learning materials, small-group study, peer tutoring, and so forth. 'Then
they are tested again to determine whether the additional time and learning
helped them reach the preset performance standard. Under the usual con-
ditions of group instruction, the group as a whole moves to the next learn-
ing unit after the majority of students has attained mastery over the previ-
ous unit or chapter. Similar procedures are employed for each learning
unit in the series. Ideally, most of the corrective work is done outside of
class time.
The mastery learning studies show that when students are given extra
time and appropriate help_ , and when they are- motivated to -learn, 80 per-
cent or more can finally attain the preset mastery level on each learning
unit. One of the more striking and consistent results of these studies is the
pattern of learning of mastery groups versus control groups (Anderson,
1973, 1976; Arlin, 1973; Block, 1970; Levin, 1975; Ozcelik, 1973). Con-
trol and mastery groups- start at the same achievement level. As learning
progresses, it is apparent that the mean performance level of the mastery
groups becomes significantly higher than that of the control groups. This
is true even before the mastery students engage in the corrective process.
The control and mastery groups have similar group instruction and
use the same learning materials. The only difference is that the students in
the mastery group are provided additional time and help to correct their
learning difficulties, while the control group is not given such help. Even
though both groups are similarly involved in learning on the first unit or
chapter, as learning progresses from unit to unit, student involvement
increases in the mastery group and decreases in the control group.
8 EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION

In the study by Anderson (1973, 1976). for example, the mastery

and control groups spent about the same percent of time on task in class
during the first learning unit (74 and 76 percent, respectively). During the
second unit, the mastery group was involved 78 percent of the time, while
the control group spent only 64 percent of the time in active learning. By
the third unit, the students in the mastery group 'were, on the average,
involved in active learning S2 percent of the time compared to only 62
percent of the time for the average student in the control group.
These results suggest several explanations. First, the students in the
mastery group are provided with the cognitive prerequisites necessary for
each new learning unit in the series. Bloom (1976) calls them cognitive
entry behaviors. Students who acquire the necessary prerequisites are bet-
ter able to understand the instruction and. as a result, become more in-
volved in the learning. Second, students in the mastery group develop
higher levels of motivation for later units in the series. Since they have
experienced success in the earlier units, they are more confident in their
ability to learn well and to succeed in subsequent units. Students in the
mastery group seem more able to make good use of the learning time
available in class. In contrast, many students in the control group are not
likely to learn the subject. This would explain why their degree of active
learning time decreases over a series of learning units.
Hecht (1977) presents strong evidence on the role of cognitive pre-
requisites in determining students' degree of involvement. Hecht used
tenth-grade mastery and control groups to demonstrate that students who
possess the prerequisites become involved in claiisroom learning. Students
who reached the mastery standard, whether they learned under the mastery
learning or control conditions, became equally involved in classroom learn-
ing. Students who did not acquire the necessary prerequisites, no matter
what method of instruction was used, spent signilicartly less active learning
time on the next unit. Students who did acquire the necessary prerequisites
performed much higher on the final achievement test than did the students
who had not acquired the appropriate prerequisites. Milder mastery condi-
tions, more students acquire the prerequisites and are involved in their
learning.
Thus, when two groups of students begin with simEar levels of per-
formance and involvement in learning, they can become very different in
both dimensions in a short period of time. The difference between the
instructional conditions provided to these two groups is the additional
time and corrective help that students in the mastery group receive to sup-
plement their group instruction. This time is used to help the students
correct mistakes and achieve the preset mastery standard, These processes
and procedures are referred to as feedback-corrective procedures.
 ACTIVE LEA NING TIME 9

Implications for Classroom Practices

Changes in the degree of student involvement result in changes in
student learning outcomes. Greater student involvement results in in-
creased student achievement and other positive learning outcomes; de-
creases in the amount of engaged learning result in decreased student
achievement and other learning outcomes. Student involvement is a strong
determinant of learning outcomes, as illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure t The Relation of Student Characteristics and Instructional

Processes to Student Involvement in Learning and Learn-
ing Outcomes

Student
Characteristics
Prerequisite
knowledge and
skills
Interest in learning

Student Involvemen Learning Outcomes

In Learning Achievement
Amount of active Interests
learning time Attitudes

Instructional
Processes
Clarity of
presentation
Relevance to
instructional goals

Figure 1 also shows that student involvement is largely affected by two

sets of conditionsthe appropriateness of instructional processes and
procedures and the degree to which students are prepay d to learn a new
task. When instructional processes evoke student acti..,ities appropriate to
the goals of learning, student involvement is likely to increase. Students
who are better prepared for a new learning task will be more involved in
learning than those who are less well prepared.
 10 EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION

How to Improve Class Involvement

L Devote more time to teaching-learning activities. Teachers who
analyze their own instructional patterns become more aware of certain
activities that do not contribute directly to either instruction or learning
(such as recording student attendance, distributing materials, solving class-
room organizational problems, or dealing with discipline problems). Ac-
tivities that are essential to instruction include explaining, directing, prob-
ing, testing, listening to responses. and demonstrating new ideas and
procedures. Several studies suggest that many teachers spend only a small
part of each school day actually teaching (Alschuler and others, 1975;
Conant, 1973; Cusick, 1973).
Teachers' activities can also be translated into estimates of time. Since
only a fixed amount of time is available, its effective use is crucial. If a
typical classroom session lasts about 50 minutes, the actual minutes de-
voted to teaching and learning is usually much less. The more teachers
increase the amount of time for teaching and learning processes. the more
opportunities students have to become actively involved in learning. Alter-
nately, when much time is spent on nonteaching and nonlearning activities,
students have less time and opportunity for involved learning.
There are many ways to increase teaching and learning time during a
class period. The teacher could prepare and organize plans, procedures,
and materials before instruction begins, rather than in class. The teacher
could also distribute learning materials to students' desks, or prepare
blackboard illustrations, audiovisual material, and other teaching aids
ahead of class time. Essentially, teachers need to "observe" how they cur-
rently use class time and consider a variety of ways to increase teaching-
learning time.
2. Increase active student participation. The most common method of
maximizing student participation is eliciting their active responses to in-
struction' Active participation means that students are doing something
with the learning materials or directions provided by the teacher. These
activities can be observable or nonobservable. Students who write their
responses or respond orally to questions are more involved in learning
than students who listen, watch other students, or wait for the teacher to
give further instructions.
Two-way communication between students and teachers or between
students and learning materials is usually more effective than discussions
among classmates without the guidance of an adult. Students seated near
the teacher tend to be more involved in two-way communication than
students seated further from the teacher (Kim and others, 1974). Jackson
(1968) suggests that teachers can improve two-way communication and
 ACTIVE LEARNING TIME

increase student involvement by moving about he classroom frequently

and changing seating arrangements.
Many teachers establish a defined pattern of techniques for evoking
overt student involvement. If teachers call on students in a predictable
pattern, students will be actively engaged oil,' when they expect to be
called on. Ideally, they should be actively involved in learning even when
other students are contributing to the class. Most are anxious to receive the
teachers' approval as much as possible. They'll make a great effort to pre-
dict the questions they will be asked, when they will be expected to answer,
and when the teacher will summarize the major points to be remembered.
Under these conditions, some students become involved in their learning
only when they believe it is necessary. If teachers usually repeat the major
ideas at the beginning or end of the session, or in other ways indicate
important (or less important) points, a number of students will become
highly involved in learning only when the teacher signals what is important.
Changing patterns or techniques may be helpful. Instead of using
fixed patterns to review or summarize the main ideas of a lesson, teachers
should signal frequently to the students that much of what is discussed in
class is important.
A class is not merely a group of 20 or 30 isolated individualsit is a
small social system in which students have much in common. The class as
a whole can develop anxieties, a special climate, or pride, desires, and
interests. Group reinforcement of student involvement or participation is
effective in increasing participation. But some teachers too frequently
reinforce only a small number of students (Brophy and Good, 1974). They
need to reinforce as many students in the class as possible. The teacher
also needs to find a great variety of way_ s to reinforce and reward both
active learning and learning outcomes. A teacher is more likely to succeed
in this by knowing students well enough to determine the interests, desires,
and rewards they will respond to.
3. Make fluid transitions between activities. A classroom is a busy
place in which many activities may occur simultaneously: students read
aloud, talk, take notes, solve problems, listen, and so on. Sometimes sev-
eral instructional settings are used during a single lessonsmall groups,
large groups, or individual desk work. In a typical classroom more than`
one concept, rule, or idea is discussed in a lesson. The transitions from one
activity to another, from one setting to the next, all decrease student in-
volvement in learning. Clearly, transitions are necessary, but the less time
spent in transitions, the more students learn (Anderson and others, 1979).
Teachers must seek effective and efficient ways to make these transi-
tions almost automatic and fluid so as to minimize disruptions and maxi-
mize continuity. A teacher may find that using signals before a transition
12 EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION

can help maintain students' attention and concentration and maximize the
lesson's continuity. Students can also share in the responsibility for making
smooth transitions by adhering to well-defined rules and playing specific
roles during classroom changes. Teachers can deliberately increase student
interest and curiosity before a transition, emphasize the goals and roles of
the forthcoming activity_ , and motivate students for new and challenging
experiences. .

4. Use adequate and clear instructions. Presenting facts and directions

clearly and information accurately, and avoiding unnecessary difficulties or
misleading activities also increases active student involvement. It is hard
for students to become actively involved when they're not sure what is
expected of them or if they're confused or distracted. Learning oppor-
tunities that help students relate their existing knowledge to new learning
tasks also maintain active participation.
Organization of instruction and instructional materials helps students
focus on the essential ideas of a learning task. Learning experiences and
materials can be organized in a number of ways; sequential erganization,
topic organization, or chronological organization are only a few of the
possibilities. A clear framework for new ideas and concise directions arid
instruction are necessary for active involvement of students in the learning
process.
5. Increase the interest value of instruction. Classroom instruction
about matters of interest to students, of course, motivates them to partici-
pate actively. Therefore, teachers and curriculum developers must identify
students' interests and relate them to..the instruction and materials. Natur-
ally, students are the most direct source of information about the things
that interest them.

How To Improve Individual Student Involvement

1. Identify and help the least involved students. A teacher needs to
observe students during instruction to identify those who have the greatest
difficulty becoming actively engaged. However, simply to identify them is
not enough. The teacher must determine the reasons for their lack of
participation and how to evoke more active participation. Students may be
uninvolved for different masons boredom, anxiety, fatigue, personal
problems, inability to understand the instruction, or involvement in matters
unrelated to the classroom. Sometimes the teacher's interest in students and
their needs or "private attention- can improve motivation and involvement.
2. Prepare students adequately. School learning is cumulative and in
many ways hierarchical. In order to learn a certain subject, a student must
have the relevant and necessary prerequisites for each new learning task.
 ACTIVE LEARNING TIME _3

In the primary grades. these prerequisite knowledges arid skills are derived
mainly from within the subject matter being taught. In the later school
grades, a wider range of prerequisite knowledge and skills niay be required,
The teacher needs to find various ways of gathering evidence about
students' preparedness for particular learning tasks and provide oppor-
tunities for students to obtain the prerequisites. Tests during the learning
process, summaries of learned material, and reviews all give the teacher
information about student progress and areas in which improvement is
needed.
3. Adapt instruction rti i,ridividual needs. Students vary greatly not
only in their cognitive readiness for particular tasks, but also in their pace
of learning, motivation to learn,) anxiety, self-confidence, and self-concept
as students. These factors are essential components in students' efforts and
willingness to concentrate and take an active role in learning. Teachers can
adapt to individual students' needs by using examples linked to students'
actual and potential interests and by using a variety of practice exercises
or explanations that differ in complexity.
It is possible that a highly motivated student can become apathetic
and disinterested in learning due to personal problems. Or, a student who
was once uninvolved could become more participating. Thus, teachers
need to adapt optimal conditions of learning and instruction in a flexible
way. As time passes, the same procedures that once helped a particular
student may become decreasingly effective and need to be modified.
2. Feedback- Corrective
Procedures
Anyone who has ever taught knows the difficulties of evaluating student
learning outcomes. Students want to know whether they have passed or
failed, and teachers want to know whether the goals were accomplished by
the instructional processes and materials they used. Each teacher feels
responsible for an appropriate, meaningful, and precise interpretation of
test results; but both the teacher and the students are aware that evaluation
reveals strengths and weaknesses of instruction as well as learning.
Students are not always able to evaluate their own responses. They
usually benefit from information that confirms appropriate o correct re-
sponses and identifies incorrect or inappropriate ones. They vary greatly
with regard to their expectations, self-esteem, anxiety, and motivation
about learning and achievement.
Suppose two students in the same classroom were informed that 80
percent ofstheir responses were correct. While one student may be disap-
pointed Yth this result, another student may feel quite satisfied and gain
the confidence to do even better in the future. The obvious differences
between these two students are their attitudes and expectations. Some
students will relearn the material they have missed and try to correct their
mistakes; others may ignore their mistakes but resolve to be more attentive
in the future. Still others May become discouraged, decrease their efforts,
and lose interest in their work.
Each evaluation of student learning k s informational as well as emo-
tional consequences that influence studer 'earning and attitudes toward
the learning process and themselves. In searcaing for the classroom condi-
tions under which students and their teachers can make the best use of
evaluative results, certain questions are raised. To what extent do teachers
and students use evaluative results to alter instructional and learning out-
comes? What information is needed to improve further learning and in-
struction7 How can teachers and students use this information to optimize
learning /Outcomes?

14
 FEEDBACK-CORRECTIVE PRDCEDDREs 15

The Concept of Feedback

The term feedback is associated with electronics and computer sci-
ence; it refers to a process whereby data are fed back to a system in order
to modify conditions and maintain a predetermined equilibrium in the
system. When we set a thermostat at a desired room temperature, it con-
stantly receives feedback that allows it to control the temperature by
switching a heater on and off.
Feedback is widely used today by most of us in a variety of daily
situations. When we examine our bank account, paint a picture, or tutor a
student, we judge the results according to an expected or desired standard.
If wt spend more money than we budgeted, if the mixture of colors does
not satisfy our aesthetic values, or if the student doesn't understand our
instruction, we will probably try to do something to make the situation
come closer to our standard.
Belief in our ability to alter behaviors, our desire to achieve certain
goals, and awareness of the means by which we can achieve predetermined
Standards are powerful factors in learning and development. Indeed, many
educators emphasize the essential function of feedback in the learning and
instructional process. Nuthall (1976) stressed the crucial importance of
feedback: "If there ever arises the 'teachable moment' in class discussion
or other instructional situations, it is that period following a pupil's re-
sponse to a question" (p. 280).
Feedback has been used synonymously with the term "knowledge of
results," which doesn't really convey the full meaning of feedback. Thorn-
dike (1931) suggests that knowledge of results improves student perform-
ance only when the student is motivated, when the knowledge of results is
informative, and when the student is helped to correct his or her mistakes.
Bruner (1968) emphasizes that student learning depends on the knowledge
of results "at a time when and at a place where the knowledge can be used
for correction" (p. 50). This implies that knowledge of results is only one
of several components included in an effective learning feedback process.
In his theory of school learning, Bloom (1976) refers to this essential
component of learning and instruction as feedback and corrective proce-
dures.

Feedback and Correction in Relation to a Performance Standard

Feedback and correction involves three related components. First, it
includes a definition of a standard of performance for a student, class, or
teacher. Second, it involves a process whereby precise, relevant, and valid
evidence are gathered and reported to the students and the teacher. ThiS
provides information regarding what has been achieved and what is still
16 EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION

needed to be learned or taught in order to reach a defined standard. Finally,

it includes the use of corrective procedures by which gaps in the learning,
mistakes, and other misunderstandings can be relearned of corrected.
Setting a defined standard i., essential to the feedback-corrective cycle.
A predetermined standard sets the criterion to which a teacher or the
students can referjri order to judge their learning and instructional results.
Ideally, a predetermined standard indicates a minimum or optimal per-
formance level to enhance students' future learning and performance.
Thus, when knowledge of a student's performance is being compared with
an explicit criterion, it indicates to the teacher and the student whether or
not the student is ready to continue learning successfully. In contrast, when
knowledge of a student's performance is given without relation to a spe-
cific and well-defined criterion, neither the teacher nor the student can
determine the student's readiness for further learning.
Feedback on what as and has not been achieved is essential for
modifying the learning process. The teacher can alter the instruction or
materials and adapt the learning objectives or segments of instruction that
have not been effective. It also orients both the teacher and the students to
the strengths and weaknesses of the instruction and the learning process.
To be effective, feedback evidence must be followed by a corrective
process, the stage in which students are provided with additional learning
opportunities to reach to preset standard. Its main function is either to
correct students' mistakes and misunderstandings or to improve their per-
formance level on the learning objectives. Used appropriately, corrective
procedures help students improve their learning and take over the correc-
tive functions themselves.
Setting performance standards, providing students with feedback in-
formation, and following up with corrective.procedures form a cycle of
activities. Each of these three components plays its own role in improving
learning and instruction and each requires different kinds of behaviors and
acCvities. The strength of these three components, however, depends on
their interrelatedness. Setting performance standards alone does not im-
prove learning and instruction unless the two additional conditions and
activities are involved. Providing specific and informative feedback is
necessary but it has little effect on learning unless students are given oppor-
tunities to correct their difficulties and reach the preset standard.
Figure 2 demonstrates the relationships of the feedback corrective
system. The performance standard typically sets the criterion required for
further adequate learning, and the interplay between the feedback and
corrective procedures leads to the attainment of the desired standard. The
strength of this system is that it actually alters the process of learning and
the process of instruction.
 FEEDBACK-CORRECTIVE PROCEDURES 17

Figure 2. Relationships Among Components of the Feedback-

Corrective System

Standard

Feedback Information Corrective

Procedures

In order to he effective, the system should be used during the learning

and instructional process. Feedback and corrective procedures (in relation
to a preset stardard) are needed at regular intervals during the learning
process before errors and misunderstandings accumulate. If errors are
allowed to build up, students become frustrated about their learning abil-
ities and teachers become discouraged about their teaching abilities,

The Effects of Feedback and Corrective Procedures on Learning

Much evidence supports the powerful contribution of feedback and
corrective procedures to learning effectiveness and student performance
(Anderson, 1973; Arlin, 1973; Binor, 1974; Block, 1970). These proce-
dures are at the heart of the mastery learning strategy Two studies
illustrate the effects of feedback and correction. One was carried out under
laboratory conditions (Went ling, 1973), the other under regular classroom
conditions (Levin, 1979) .
Went ling examined how feedback and corrective procedures affect
both student achievement and retention. One group of stude , learned
eight units under conditions where no explicit standard was set prior to
their learning and no feedback and corrective procedures were provided.
The students were told that a test for grading, purposes would follow each
particular unit, for which they received only their score-
The second group of students learned the same units, but they were
required to reach a preset standard of 80 percent on each learning unit,:
Feedback and corrective procedures, which required the students to review
their weaknesses using the same instructional materials again, helped those
who failed to meet the preset standard. Following this review, students
were retested with a parallel form of the unit achievement test.
 EFFEcrivE toN

At the end of the eight learning units, students in both croups took a
final achievement test and a retention test. Wentling's results. when mea-
sured on the final acilio.enictit test and the retention test, indicated sig-
nificant advantages in favor of the students who were provided with feed-
back and corrective procedures in relation to a standard.
In the Levin (1979) study, two groups of students learned a set of
concepts and rules in probability. Students in one group were required to
learn each unit to a predetermined performance standard (S5 percent). At
the end of a unit. the students were tested on their mastery of basic and
important issues. On the next day, students individually received feedback
information about what they had learned well and what they still needed to
learn to reach the preset standard, When a mistake was made by more
than half the students, the teacher reviewed the relevant concept or ideas
with all the students in the class. Otherwise. the students who failed to
reach the standard were assigned corrective procedures, which they com-
pleted by themselves or with other students. They received information
regarding other sources of instructional materials they could use during the
corrective process. These included textbooks and an alternative set of
programmed learning units with detailed explanations of each concept,
procedure, and rule. Students were encouraged to learn in small groups
and to help each other correct their mistakes. They formed their own study
groups and planned their learning procedures by themselves. Sometimes
they consulted the teacher or a student who had reached the required
standard. When they finished the corrective procedure, they were tested
again, this time on a parallel form of the first test. Some students in this
group needed to be cycled twice through the feedback corrective system
until they reached the preset standard.
Students in the second group learned the same units, but without the
three components of the feedback corrective system. In this group students
learned a particular unit, took a test on the unit, and went directly to the
second unit in the series. When both groups finished learning the units,
they were given a final summative test and tested for their ability to apply
the learned rules in a variety of new situations.
This study demonstrates that students in the feedback and corrective
group learned more than the students who were deprived of feedback and
correction. In, addition, if students learn a set of rules under learning con-
ditions that do not include feedback and corrective procedures, their ability
to apply the rules is very limited and approaches only a chance level score,
in contrast, students provided with feedback and corrective procedures
are able to apply the rules in new problem situations.
Block and Burns (1976) and Bloom (1976) report the results of a
number of mastery learning studies, in which the use of feedback and cor-
 FEEDBACK-CORRECTIVE PROCEDURES 19

receive procedures are essential components. Many of the studies found

that when students are provided with feedback and corrective procedures
to reach a preset standard for etch successive unit in a series of learning
tasks, the 'r final outcomes arc very high. Approsimately 80 percent of
mastery students attain the same high level of achievzmeni as We top 20
percent of control students, According to Bloom (1971). under more ideal
conditions of feedback and correctives, as many as 90 percent of the stu-
dents can achieve the same performance level reached by the top 20 per-
cent of the students who are deprived of feedback and corrective oppor-
tunities.
Feedback and corrective procedures related to an appropriate stand-
ard help most students, regardless of intelligence or aptitude, to attain the
desired educational goals. When groups of students are consistently pro-
vided with feedback and corrective procedures during a series of related
tasks, they gradually need fewer corrective procedures to reach the preset
standard. Students' achievement improves, as well as their learning habits.
When students realize they are capable of mastering the standard set by
the teacher, they develop greater self-contidence in their ability to learn
and greater interest in the subject matter.

Grades

Almost all teachers use grades as an overall assessment of student

learning and performance. The grading process is related to student
achievement on specific tests and may represent the teacher's judgment of
the student's ability, conduct, and motivation for learning. Teachers also
use grades to judge instruction as well as student success, But grades do not
indicate to teachers the specific weaknesses and strengths of their instruc-
tion, nor do they indicate the kinds of difficulties students have in the
learning process,
In many educational systems, teachers assign grades using five levels
of performance, such as A, B, C. D, F, or their numerical equivalents.
Also, quite frequently, students' success or failure is determined by their
rank order rather than by their success or failure to grasp essential ideas.
Research findings (Bloom. 1964; Hicklin, 1962; Payne, 1963) demon-
strate that some students are almost always rewarded each year with an
A or B grade, whereas others are reminded annually that they are only D
or F students. In such a grading system, some students are continually
categorized as good, average, or poor. The grading system is highly con-
sistent from one course to another; because grades do not help teachers
improve the teaching and learning process, it is not surprising that grades
at one level of education predict grades at later levels with great accuracy.
20 EF FE <rty IN mut: rioN

A grade may tell students whether they have reached an expected

standard and v' here the% are in compari,on kith their el:is:noes. Students
interpret this information in different v.:o,s: it may motivate some to work
harder, but it may discouraee others. Rarely are students riven information
or additional opportunities to alter their learning or their grades. Since
erades do not indicate to pupils what they still need to learn, even the
most highly motivated students have difficulty using grades as a basis for
directino their own learning.

Adequacy of Responses

Some teachers use detailed feedback information to indicate stu-

dents the adequacy of their responses to questions. test items, or written
exercises. In some classes, this approach may be served by learning mate-
rials, such as the questions at the end of a textbook chapter, programmed
instruction, or by using teaching machines. Such specific information
cates to students the questions or exercises they were able to solve and
those they were unable to solve. However, it is not usually related to an
explicit standard, nor does it usually suggest the necessary corrective pro-
cedures.
Many studies demonstrate that knowledge of correct and incorrect
results of each specific item in a learning or testing situation has little or no
ect in improving learning (Angell, 1949; Karabinus, 1966; Karraker,
1967; Plowman and Stroud, 1942; Sassenrath and Garverick, 1965; Spen-
cer and Barker, 1969; Sturges, 1969). According to Sturges (1972a,
1972b), information regarding the accuracy of each response is too specific
and does not give students a general perspective of what they have or have
not learned.

Encouragement and Criticism

Students' motivation to learn and their perceptions of teachers' ex-

pectations should have some effect on their learning. As a result, many
devoted teachers feel responsible and look for different ways of developing
student interest, self-confidence, and positive attitudes. While some teach-
ers consider grades as motivating devices, others look for additional types
of motivation and encouragement. These may include approval or disap-
proval, verbal praise or criticism, and various evaluations of student
learning.
Studies over the years point to at least 180 different types of feedback
behaviors at the disposal of teachers (Zahorik, 1968), who actually use
 FEEDRACKORRECTIV PROCEDURES 21

only about fifteen of them. Studies tend to categorize teacher behaviors as

criticiSm and approval; while teachers' criticism may impair learnim!, ap-
proval behaviors are likely to improve learning Lind performance.

Praise

Researchers hive looked at teachers' use of praise and criticism to

determine whether these variables have any effect on student learning. Con-
trary to expectations, there are no consistent and strong relationships be-
tWeen praise or criticism and student achievement. Frequent praise is not
related to student achievement (Rosenshine, 1971b), nor is criticism nega-
tively related to achievement (Flanders, 1970; Harris and others, 1968;
Wright and Nuthall, 1970).
Most researchers now believe teachers' verbal behavior should be
considered in light of the information it conveys to students (Nuthall,
1976). It must be clear to students why they are being praised or criticized
and how they should modify their behavior. Many recent studies regard
feedback and correctives as essential components of effective instruction
(Stallings, 1976; Gage, 1976), For example, Stallings found that in class-
rooms where teachers systematically used a pattern of feedback and cor-
rective processes and some praise, students attained high performance
levels in reading and mathematics. The most effective pattern of teaching
behavior was acknbwledgement or praise for correct responses and further
probing by the teachers when the answers were wrong.

Written Comments

Group makes it difficult for the teacher to praise or

criticize each ii J h dual student. To overcome this difficulty, many teach-
ers provide their students with written comments on homework assign-
ments, tests, or worksheets.
Research carried out in different sul-1::ct areas and with a variety of
students has studied the effects on later learning of written comments ac-
companied by students' grades or scores (Allen, 1972; Hake, 1973;
Klinger, 1971; Wipe!, 1970; Moody, 1970; Rhoads, 1967; Shrago, 1970;
Simons, 1971; Starkey, 1971; Sweet, 1966). The earliest, a study by Page
(1958), involved 2,139 students and 74 teachers. Each student received a
grade and a teacher's comment. The comments were general and encour-
aging, such as "good work," "poor work but you can do better," and so
forth. Page found that students who were graded on an objective test and
given an encouraging comment performed better on a subsequent examina-
fion than students who received only their test grades without comments.
 EFFECTIVE INSTRL: 11)N

However. later studies failed n show a significant relationship he-

cher comments and later student learning_ Even when effects
were estahltshed, they were small and of neeheible importance ( Hammer.
1972; Lesner, 1967). One study by Stewart and White (197o) explored
whether written comments alone would have an effect on later student
performance. They suggest that the comment in relation to a letter grade,
not the comment itself, may affect student performance_
General and positive evaluative comments accompanied by a letter
grade do not specify to students what they have already learned and what
they still need to learn. Even if such comments could encourage students
to relearn, they do not help students interpret and understand what they
should doin the relearning process. Comments in conjunction with grades
or scores are likely to have a more substantial effect if, instead of being
general and evaluative, they provide specific feedback information.
The literature emphasizes that if students are deprived of standards,
feedback, and corrections, some may learn well, but most will accumulate
errors and achieve much less than they might. In addition, if only one of
the three components is used, learning can improve only to a small degree
and for only a few of the students. The strength of each component is com-
plete only if all three components are involved and clearly relate to each
other. Feedback, followed by opportunities for students to relearn or
correct their mistakes to reach the preset standard, significantly improves
most students' learning.

Setting Performance Standards

A defined performance standard sets the criterion for judging learning
and instruction. Performance standards need to be set at frequent intervals
during instruction. Standards that are defined in terms of student perform-
ance at the end of a semester or an academic year tell teachers and students
whether the learning and instruction were effective. A performance stand-
ard used as part of the instructional process, however, indicates to the
teacher the extent to which learning and instruction were effective and the
likelihood that future instruction and learning will also be effective and
efficient. Similarly, a preset standard that is explicit tells students whether
they have reached the goals set by the teacher. It indicates that something
needs to be dole to meet the required standard if further learning is to be
effective; it dintts and guides students' attention and learning.
Block (1970) examined the effects of different standards on students'
performance and attitudes toward the subject matter. He used five com-
parable groups of students and provided each with similar instru5tion,arKI
learning materials; each group, though, was given a different pei-formance
,)
 FEEDRACK-CORREC F PRO DURFS

standard. Block foiled that higher standards resulted in her omit: e

1

outcomes. The group of students who reached the highest standard (95
percent 1 performed better on their knowledge of learning materials, their
application of knowledge in new situations, and their retention of learning
when compared with students w ho had reached the lower standards of 85,
75, 65, and 50 percent.
But Block also found that when the required performance standard
became too high_ attitudes and interest in the subject matter de-
creased when compared to students who reached a somewhat lower stand-
ard, Thus, very high performance standards. when followed by feedback
and corrective procedures, are effective in improving cognitive learning
outcomes_but they may not have the same maximum effect on the affective
outcomes of student learning. It is preferable to search for a standard that
maximizes the cognitive outcomes and still maintains high affective con-
sequences of learning.
There is no one single standard that is optimal for every learning
situation and for all students. In fact, teachers are relatively free to deter-
mine not only the level of the standard. but also whether to use a single
standard for all or varied standards for each student in the class. Further-
more, a teacher can decide to successively raise standards by startine,
somewhat lower and slowly increasing them as the course proceeds.
Most researchers do not regard 100 percent mastery of the materials
as a necessary standard in the classroom. The standard should be deter-
mined by the level of achievement on one unit of learning, which is neces-
sary to assure student success on a subsequent unit. For example, an 80
percent performance level on a learning unit may be an adequate standard
if it covers the essential objectives as well as those necessary for future
learning. This distinction between less relevant and more relevant objec-
s to subsequent learning helps teachers set realistic, practical, and
effective standards.

Effective Feedback Procedures

Feedback tells students and teachers what has or has not been
achieved in relation to a defined standard. The main concern should be
on what has been learned and what must still he learned. A present stand-
ard indicates to students what level they are to achieve, and effective feed-
back information indicates whether or not they have met the standard and
what they still must do to reach it. Relevant and effective feedback needs
to be specific and clear in view of the learning materials and the preset
standard. Feedback must also be given on a regular basis at meaningful
intervals in the instructional sequence.
 EFFECTIVE INSTH. EIONI

When feedback is used the end of a semester or marking period, it

has little value in improving student learning or teacher instruction. At
this point in the learninL.1 process, errors hate airead aectiiiiulated and
students may he less motivated to do something about the misunderstood
or unlearned materials. Similarly, if the feedback information is used after
a long period of time, it is not at all practical for the teacher to alter or
strengthen the instruction or the instructional materials. Timing is essential
to an effective use of feedback 1 tiuthall, 196); it should be protided
when improvement is still possible.
Within mastery learning studies, feedback information is prodded to
students at scheduled and defined points in a sequence of learnim, units.
Typically, a unit of learning includes a period of about two weeks. At the
end of such a period, feedback is gathered with the use of short formative
tests on the major objectives of the learning units to help students deter-
mine what they still must learn. Assignments (writing an essay, planning a
project, or experiments and obsert ations) may also he potential sources
of feedback evidence. in fact, every question that a student asks or answers
in class could indicate that he or she has difficulties or has reached an
expected standard. Pointing out mistakes is useful only if students are also
helped to understand what they can do to correct them. Emphasizing what
students have learned is more likely to encourage them and eke them
confidence in their ability to learn.

Alternative Corrective Procedures

Feedback information can he effective if, and only if, it is followed
by corrective procedures which correct weaknesses of learning and instruc-
tion. In this stage, students are expected to narrow the gap between their
existing performance level and the level required by the standard. Correc-
tive procedures clear up misunderstandings students have already learned
and allow them to relearn anything they have forgotten or failed to learn
in the past (Bloom, 1976).
A thorough analysis of student learning and performance, coupled
with analysis of the learned materials, is the key to selecting corrective
procedures. One procedure allows students to review the same content
materials they used previously. Although such procedures are effective in
improving students' learning (Smith and Wick, 1976), they also have
some limits. Sometimes inadequate or unclear learning materials cause
students' mistakes; thus, reviewing the same materials may not be efficient.
Effective corrective procedures may use alternative instructional
materials and methods (Block and Tierney, 1974; Block, 1972; Block and
Anderson, 1975; Kersh, 1971) to help students correct their difficulties.
 FE EuBAcKi-cogREcTIN E PROCEDURES 25

Using a variety of materials or methods suggests that students' weaknesses

may be determined by the qu.ihtv of the instruction. It also helps them
understand that they may need different means to reach a performance
level.
When students receive appropriate guidance, they are capable of using
corrective procedures on their own. In most mastery learning studies where
group ,nstruction is used, the teacher reviews and explains items that the
rrnlority (65 percent or more) of the students missed. The remaining
items are corrected by the students individually or in small study groups.
The most effective corrective procedure for students above the second
grade involves small study groups of two or three. Students find the ques-
tions they missed, and the students who answered them correctly take turns
explaining the correct answers (Bloom. 1978). If all the students in a
small study group answered a question incorrectly, they can refer to sup-
plementary materials or seek help from the teacher or a student from
another group.
If the groups are heterogeneous in terms of student achievement and
motivation, the corrective process may become cooperative when no single
student acts as the "tutor" for the others. Underlying the strength of such a
corrective process are similar experiences and language shared by the
students.
The corrective process is the stage in which students have additional
opportunities to reach the preset standard and should be followed by fur-
ther feedback information. In mastery learning classes, under group in-
struction. corrective procedures are followed by additional formative test-
ing. Typically, a teacher uses a new parallel test covering objectives or
items students had to relearn or correct. Students receive evidence about
whether they have reached the set standard, what they have learned suc-
cessfully. and what they still need to learn, As a reFult, students begin to
develop a positive view of their own learning abilities (Bloom, 1976,
1977).
Students who have more self-confidence and a greater desire to learn
become more involved as they progress in their learning. Gradually, they
need less external help to reach a defined standard and may even take over
the corrective procedures themselves. Effective use of feedback corrective
systems helps teachers develop more confident students who not only
achieve at a higher level but who also learn how to learn.
 instructional Cues
The essence of classroom instruction creates situations that, stimulate suc-
cessful learning. Each educational situation is full of possibilities for both
the teacher and the students. Each includes a variety of stimuli that convey
to students the content elements to he learned and directions for what they
are to do and how they are to do it. These explanations and directions are
referred to as instructional cues (Bloom, 1976 ).
The major cues in group instruction tend to be verbal, directing stu-
dents in certain activities or particular ideas. Other cues use students'
Perceptual, visual, tactile, or other senses in the learning process. Colors
or maps, diagrams, models, or film are some of the nonverbal instructional
cues teachers and curriculum developers use.
In analyzing our own teaching, we may recognize that we use a par-
ticular pattern of explanation whenever we introduce a new topic. Or we
may use certain words or tones to emphasize an important issue or to
contrast it with previously learned issues. Different instructional cues are
used for different educational goals. Teachers use particular instructional
cues, such as repetition or drill exercises, whenever students are to remem-
ber certain ideas, concepts. or procedures. Teachers use instructional cues
such as probing or juxtaposition of ideas or procedures when they want
students to understand and use ideas in novel situations. -
Much research has focused on the direct relationship between instruc-
tional cues and learning outcomes (Dunkin and Biddle, 1974; Gage, 1976;
Rosenshine. 1971a, 1971b). Recently, educators and researchers have
recognized that, for a better understanding of the role and effects of in-
structional cues, cues should be considered in terms of the activities or
behaviors they elicit in students during the learning process (Doyle, 1978).
Instructional cues are effective in improving learning if they satisfy
two related sets of conditions. They must be clear to students and they
must elicit intended reactions or responses. If a teacher speaks too rapidly
or uses strange words, the students will have difficulty responding to the

26
 IN RI:CT! NAL (-ITS 27

cues. Under these conditions, we would not pect the desired learning to
occur. It a teacher uses familiar words at an appropriate pace. students
will be able to respond. If directions or explanati;ils are relevant and help
students learn, students' response to such cues should result in improved
learning.
Instructional cues focus student attention on the important and exit
ical issues and otTer opportunities to actually experience behaviors that
can improve learning.

Educational Objectives
Educational objectives describe and illustrate the behaviors and proc-
esses that students are expected to acquire. According to Tyler (1949),
the most useful and clear way of stating objectives is to indicate the con-
tent to be taught and learned and the kind of behaviors to be developed.
For example, the ability to remember capital cities is a specific educational
objective that includes two dimensions: content (names of cities) and
behavior (remembering).
Educational objectives can improve the teaching process. Objectives
guide teachers in thinking about and planning learning experiences and
help them in selecting and developing methods and materials that are likely
to produce the intended learning.
A substantial number of studies have investigated the efTf!ct of student
knowledge of learning objectives on achievement. Most of these studies
were made under learning conditions that approximate classroom situations
(Blaney and McKie. 1969; Davis, 1970; Duchastel and Brown, 1974;
Engel, 1968; Gagne and Rothkopf. 1975; Rothkopf and Kaplan. 1972;
Royer, 1977). They generally indicate that students who are given infor-
mation about instructional objectives prior to their learning remember the
learning materials better than students who are told nothing about objec-
tives. Also, specific objectives have the greatest effect on learning (Kaplan,
1976; Kaplan and Rothkopf. 1974; Kaplan and Simmons, 1974).
Some researchers, however, question the value of objectives as effec-
tive cues for learning (Brown, 1970; DeRose, 1970; Ebel, 1967 Eisner,
1967; Etter, 1969; Jackson and Beford. 1965; Smith, 1967). It is clear that
providing objectives to students is advantageous under some conditions,
but not all conditions. Simply providing students with obectives is not
enough.
Melton ( 1978) emphasizes that when objectives are too general or
ambiguous, extremely difficult, or ignored by students, just knowing the
objectives will have little or no effect on student learning. Also, if students
 E II% 1- STRU

are not interested in the objectives or if they are already motivated to

learn. advance knowledge of instructional objectives will do nothing to
enhance their learning. Effectie instructional objecti es nced to be clear,
not too difficult, and stated prior to instruction,
Gagne and Rothkopf (1975) and Rothkopf and Koether ( 1978)
explored the relationship between objectives and the characteristics of
learning materials. Objectives are more effective when they emphasize the
same things emphasized in the instructional materials.
Objectives that are given to students prior to instruction function as
orienting stimuli (Duchastel and Brown, 1974). They focus students'
attention on the relevant materials and processes and help determine stu-
dents' study habits, organization, and processing procedures (Gagne and
others, 1977). For instance, Gagne observed a group of students who were
provided with a statement of educational goal:. and instructional material.
Several of these students first read the goals and the instructional material;
then reread the goals and material again to find forgotten information; and
finally looked at the goals, closed their eyes, and mouthed words as if
using the goals to cue their review. Thus, the goals helped the students
organize their learning materials and concentrate on the relevant informa-
tion.
An intriguing and somewhat different approach was suggested by
LaPorte and Nath (1976). They fotind that comparable groups of students
who were asked to master a different number of objectives showed differ-
ences in achievement, Those who were asked to achieve more objectives
actually did so, as opposed to the students who were asked to achieve fewer
learning objectives. According to LaPorte and Nath, after receiving instruc-
tional goals, a student develops a standard of performance and acquires
information until she or he has attained the standard. When students were
instructed to do their best, they set a low performance goal, far below their
maximum capabilities. But when students were required to master the
maximum number of goals, their incentives as well as their learning in-
creased. This indicates that when students are told specifically what is
expected of them, they are likely to make the expectations their standards
for learning.
Instructional goals typically emphasize the most important aspects
for both immediate and future learning. Students' knowledge of the goals
gives them a sure sense of what they are to do and how they are to do it,
and enables them to judge when they have accomplished their task. Clear
statements of educational goals, which are appropriately related to instruc-
tion, are powerful instructional cues for teachers and students. Using
instructional goals effectively does facilitate student learning.
 iNs[RucTioNAL curs 29
Questions
Teachers u: -e questions as a teaching method to receive feedback
about whether students understand what is being taught, whether the
instruction is Offective, and when it should be changed. Researchers have
estimated that between.300 and 400 questions are asked in a typical school
day (Gall. 1970; Floyd, 1960; Schreiber, 1967; Stevens, 1912). Because
of individualized instructional strategies in the elementary grades, there is
less time for teachers' questions and more emphasis on questions written
in learning materials. However, in higher grades and in different levels of
science programs, classroom questions are still a very important aspect of
learning and instruction (Rice, 1977).
Questions can be classified according to the cognitive processes that
are required to answer them. Memory and recall of specific facts or knowl-
edge are stimulated by about 60 percent of the teacher's questions. Only
about 20 percent of the questions stimulate students' independent and
critical thinking (Arnold and others, 1973; Corey, 1940; Floyd, 1960;
Gallagher, 1965; Haynes, 1935; Wilson, 1969; Tinsley and others, 1970).
The frequency of factual questions in the classroom is positively re-
lated to students' performance on test items that measure factual knowledge
(Rosenshine, 1979). Surprisingly, though,- higher mental process ques-
tions do not relate consistently to student achievement. For instance, some.
studies (HunkinS, 1967; Furst, 1967; Soar, 1966) claim that such a re-
lationship does exist to a significant extent, while others demonstrate that
classroom questions requiring divergent thinking (Wright and Nuthall,
1970) or other kinds of higher mental process questions (Spaulding,
1965) are unrelated to student performance.
Based on a thorough review of the literature, Rosenshine (1976)
concludes that the results of these studies could best he stated as trends
suggesting that lower order questions tend to be positively related to
achievement, while high order classroom questions tend to be unrelated
to achievement. These findings and conclusions contradict educators' and
researchers' assumptions that the types of questions used in classrooms
directly determine students' level of thinking. We need to recognize, how-
ever, that most of these studies did not relate students' responses to the
teacher's questions, nor did they determine whether the questions are,
likely to be effective instructional cues only if they are clear or whether
they stimulate appropriate student answers and behaviors.
We could reasonably assume, on the other hand, that if a teacher asks
a higher mental process question to which students do not appropriately
respond, such questions will have little effect on the intended learning.
30 EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION

Similarly, if students do respond appropriately to higher levels of ques-

tions, the questions will directly affect learning and performance.
There are studies to support these assumptions. First, a number of
research studies demonstrate that there is a positive relationship between
the level of thinking required by teachers' questions and the cognitive
process actually manifested in students' responses (Arnold and others,
1973; Gallagher, 1965; Marshall and Mood, 1972; Miller, 1966; Taba
and others, 1964). Second, more recent research indicates that students'
responses to academic questioni are positively related to student achieve-
ment (Stallings and Kaskowitz, 1974). Brophy and Evertson (1976)
found a strong positive relationship between the correctness of students'
responses to teachers' questions and student achievement. Clearly, more
research is needed to establish the relationship between the nature of
teachers' questions, the correctness of student responses, and student
learning outcomes.
It does seem that the types of questions asked can stimulate appro-
priate cognitive thinking processes in students. If oral questions are to be
effective instructional cues, teachers and reseachers must emphasize appro-
priate use of questions that are clearly related to the instructional material
and to the desired educational outcomes.
Much of school learning and instruction makes use of written ma-
terials. Since questions are considered central to any learning, it is not
surprising to find that researchers have focused on the study of the effects
of questions inserted in instructional materials. Do they stimulate appro-
priate answers or behaviors? Do they aid in facilitating student-learning?
In other words, are they effective instructional cues?
The use of questions as effective cues in a written text has been the
topic of a number of experimental research studies (Rothkopf, 1972;
Frase, 1970; Rothkopf and Kaplan, 1972.; Frase and Schwartz, 1975).
Rothkopf (1972) found that when two questions were inserted on every
third page of a 36-page prose passage, retention of the passage was con-
siderably more effective than when no such questions were used. Some of
the questions were directly relevant to the questions on the retention test.
Others were not. In this study, Rothkopf found that questions that were
relevant to the test did facilitate performance on the test. In addition,
questions that had no direct relationship to the items in the test had a
general positive effect on the test performance.
Some of the studies dealt with the place in the text at which
questions were inserted. In general, consistent facilitative learning effects
were found when the questions were inserted after, rather than before,
a prose passage (Frase, 1968; Rothkopf, 1966; Rothkopf and Bisbicos,
1967). In particular, the-studies reveal better and longer recall and reten-
 INSTRUCTIONAL CUES 31

tion of the learned materials when the questions follow, rather than pre-
ceed, the passage (Anderson and Biddle, 1975; Frase, 1970; Rothkopf,
1972; Rothkopf and Bisbicos, 1967). Questions inserted at the erzd of a
passage increased recall of material not included in the questions. In con-
trast, questions preceding the passage improved students' achievement
primarily on the materials emphasized by the questions and had some
negative effects on the learning of materials not emphasized by the ques-
tions (Anderson, and Biddle, 1975; Rothkopf and Bisbicos, 1967; Frase,
1975; Rothkopf, 1966),
Several studies have explored the effects of different types of ques-
tions used in instructional materials (Rickards and DiVesta, 1974; Roth-
kopf and Bisbicos, 1967; Watts and Anderson, 1971; Allen, 1970;
Hunkins, 1968; Tenenberg, 1969; Howe and Colley, 1976; Mayer, 1975;
McConkie and others, 1973; McGraw and Grotelueschen, 1972). For
example, Watts and Anderson (1971) found that questions asking students
to apply principles to new problerns resulted in greater learning than
questions that were limited to remembering examples included in the ma-
terial text. Thus, questions on higher mental processes have a greater
facilitative effect on learning than do questions that require lower mental
processes. Similarly, Mayer (1975) found that students required to answer
complex questions excelled more on test questions relating to a new
passage than did students who were asked to answer simpler questions.
The results make it clear that different kinds of questions inserted in learn-
ing materials can be effective instructional cues. What is the nature of the
behaviors they activate in students? How do they= operate as effective
instructional cues?
Research literature suggests that questions inserted in instructional
materials enhance learning outcomes due to a selective attention and active
learning process. The questions help students learn more effectively and
efficiently by reducing irrelevant activity during learning and increasing
students' awareness of the expected goals of instruction. Questions moti-
vate students to rehearse and selectively review the relevant material
(Frase, 1968; Koran and Koran, 1975).
The use of questions in instructional materials does not simply pro-
vide students with answering skills (Mayer, 1975). The questions indi-
cate to students what they are to do and how they are to do it, giving
them greater control over their own learning processes. When the ques-
tions are at an appropriate level of diffic:"ty for the students, they are
very effective instructional cues for improl, Ing learning (Hiller, 1974).
The quality of questions and their location in the text determine
the kinds of outcomes we can expect students to achieve. This implies
 n EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION

that the questions used in written texts should be clearly related to the
goals of instruction.

Visual Aids
Most school learning is still based on written materials and largely
dependent on students' reading ability. But schools have dramatically
increased the use of media instructional aids such as movie equipment,
kits of manipulative materials, film strips, records, diagrams, and maps.
These tools enhance learning by making use of a variety of sensory proc-
esses (Carroll, 1968). Many researchers have focused on the effects of
cues that make use of different sensory stimuli in the learning process:
'It is proverbial that a picture is worth 1,000 words, and there is
some truth in this; on the other hand, there are instances when pictures
can interfere with proper comprehension if they lead the subject to make
incorrect perceptions of a situation" (Carroll, 1968, p. 8). If this is so,
when would visual illustrations and demonstrations be effective instruc-
tional cues? What are the activities they elicit in students when they are
effective?
May (1965), on the basis of a literature review, indicates that sim-
plicity of pictorial presentation facilitates learning. Pictures need to draw
the attention of students precisely to those aspects of learning required
by the instructional goal. In fact, most of the research in this area (Travers,
1973) emphasizes clarity and simplicity of demonstrations and illustrations
as necessary conditions for visual aids to be effective instructional cues.
Furthermore, it is important to provide accompanying verbal descriptions
and directions. Young students, in particular, try to remember as many
details as possible in an illustration, many of which are not relevant to
the learning goals (Ross, 1966). Older students also may use pictoria(
presentations ineffectively (Wesley, 1962). Descriptions prior to a dem
onstration aid in focusing students' attention on critical features and direct
students to spend more effective time on relevant information. Verbal
descriptions also help students organize the major features of the demon-
stration (Bandura and others, 1966).
Pictorial illustrations and demonstrations, apart from serving as at-
tention capturing devies (Paradowski, 1967), need to be informative
(Goldberg, 1974). Consequently, detailed illustrations that parallel the
relevant textual information help enhance student learning. According to
Goldberg, illustrations are most effective when they accompany other
learning materials that are being presented for the first time or that need
review. The illustrations contribute little to materials with which the stu-
dents are already familiar.
 INSTRUCTIONAL CUES 33

Resevch evidence demonstrates that student? recall of information

from learning materials is greatly improved if appropriate visual aids
accompany verbal material (Paivio, 1969; Rohwer and Harris, 1975;
Rohwer and Matz, 1975). Similarly, instructions to students to form
mental pictures relating to the content being taught were found to yield
significant improvement in students recall of ideas and materials (Levin,
1973; Levin and others, 1974; Kulhavy and Swenson, 1975; Paivio, 1971;
Rohwer and Ammons, 1971). The studies generally show that grade
school students remember more from a text if they try to form mental
images while reading the text. Visual imagery tends to be less effective in
improving learning with very young students who apparently have more
difficulty understanding these cues (Shimron, 1974). Similar results of
visual imagery were demonstrated in the learning of principles from graphs
(Lee, 1971; Lee and Dobson, 1977).
Underlining segments in a text is generally positive in facilitating
student learning. Cashen and Leicht (1970), for example, found that
underlining resulted in greater retention of both the underlined content
and the content which was not underlined. In a study by Rickards and
August (1975), students who were instructed to underline the important
issues in a written text had greater retention of all the material than did=
the students who were provided with materials already underlined.
Several recent studies reveal that a variety of instructional materials,
particularly visual and manipulative materials, can contribute to student
learning (Stallings, 1976; McDonald, 1976; Greabell, 1978). Demonstra-
tions, illustrations, and other forms of visual emphasis are effective in-
structional cues when they satisfy two requirements: they must be in-
formative, clear, and simple, and they must activate desired behaviors by
students.

Practice
In many schools, exercises and practice experiences make up a large
part of a student's work and are communication devices used by teachers
or teaching materials that require students to recall and apply their knowl-
edge. Practice experiences refer, then. to any attempt by students to per-
form a learning task. It is generally agreed that practice experiences and
exercises are effective in improving learning. But what kind of practices
are most useful in facilitating student learning? Should the practice be
uniform and similar to the learning experiences used in the classroom?
Or should practice experiences be varied and differ from the experiences
students have in the classrooms?
 34 EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION

A great number of studies explored these questions. Some were per-

formed under laboratory conditions (Duncan, 1958; Harlow, 1949, 1959)
while others were conducted under classroom conditions (Gagne and
Bawler, 1963; Gagne and others, 1965; Levin, 1979; Traub, 1966). Most
of these studies seem to indicate that learning is more effective if students
can practice in a variety of situations. When students are required to cope
with frequent changes in the practice exercises, they learn to identify the
essential elements in each learning task. They also learn how to adapt to
changing circumstances and how to identify common patterns in learning
situations. These behaviors are believed to be evoked by varied practices
and to facilitate student learning and performance.
For example, Traub (1966) varied the problem context and con-
structed his practice exercises so that the numbers, the portion of the
number lines employed, and the size of the number used was different
from problem to problem. Interestingly, the group of students who prac-
ticed with heterogeneous problems made fewer stereotyped errors than
did students who practiced with the homogeneous set of problems. The
effectiveness of heterogeneous practice questions in this study may be due
to the fact that they formed more complex learning conditions that stimu-
lated students to learn more. The homogeneous problems, which were
simpler, stimulated students to develop routine procedures of solving the
problems, which resulted in more stereotyped errors.
In a study by Levin (1979), two groups of students learned a set
of rules to a comparably high level. Following mastering the rules, each
',group received a different set of practice experiences. One type of ex-
perience included problems that were similar to those used during the
learning of the rules. The questions were very limited in terms of their
context, wording, and form of presentation. The second type of practice
experience involved more varied `problems in terms of their complexity,
context, wording, and form or presentation. The results of this study
demonstrated that practice with The heterogeneous set developed the
students' ability to apply the learned rules to a broad range of new situa-
tions. Practice on the narrow set of homogeneous problems developed
the students' ability to apply their_ only in a narrow range of
problem situations.
It is important to recognize that although varied practice experiences
are likely to be more effective than constant practice, such variability
seems to be most effective under certain conditions. These conditions are
to alter one element of the problems at a time (Schmidt, 1975), practice
the varied dimensions in relation to a general framework, and help the
students become aware of the alterations in the specific dimensions.
 INSTRUCTIONAL. CUES 35

Under some circumstances practice on homogeneous problems also

may be helpful and effective. If teachers want students to remember a skill,
procedure, or principle, practice on a limited range of exercises may be
useful. As long as it is not overdone (Luchins and Luchins, 1950), homo-
geneous practice evokes particular sets of behaviors that help students
recall learned information.
Practice experiences can be effective cues for instructing students
about what to do and how to do it. When these practices are clear to
students, they seem to produce desired behaviors that facilitate student
learning arid performance in the expected direction. Varied as well as
limited practice experiences can be effective instructional cues, but they
constitute effective cues for different kinds of instructional goals.

How To Improve Instructional Cues

Our analysis of the research literature on instructional cues includes
only a small number of activities and processes used frequently by teachers
and curriculum developers. We selected those for which there is research
evidence demonstrating their effects on student learning. Each kind of
instructional cue discussed above has focused on a specific set of cues
that can improve student learning to a significant degree. Each of these
types of cues (statement of educational objectives, questions, visual aids,
practice) has its own function and specific purpose at various stages in
the learning process and for different kinds of educational goals.
I. Increase the variety of cues. Instructional cues differ in their
strength and relevance for different students. For example, it is likely
that students who are verbally competent will learn more easily with
verbal cues (Cronbaeh and Snow, 1976). Students who feel more com-
fortable with graphic presentations or other forms of visual stimuli may
learn more easily with such cues. Cues that are likely to evoke appropriate
and relevant activities for some students may not be as effective for other
students. Teachers need to be able to improve their use of cues to ensure
effective learning by most studentsby giving cues that involve percep-
tual, visual, tactile, and other senses.
2. Adapt cues to individual needs. An individualized learning situa-
tion provides an opportunity for a great deal of communication and
interaction between the student and the teacher. A good teacher naturally
uses a variety of cues and modifies them to the needs of the student (S.
Bloom, 1976). Whenever the teacher recognizes that the student has
difficulties in understanding an explanation, he or,/ she offers a different
one. The tutor is constantly shifting directions, examples, questions, or
explanations. Depending on the student's behaviors and activities, the
36 EFFECT WE INSTRUCTION

teacher clarifies or repeats examples and explanations as necessary to

make them clear and to evoke the appropriate activity from the student.
The powerful effects of cues in a one-to-one learning instructional
situation are brought about when the teacher not only alters the cues, but
alters them in such a way that they fit the special needs of the individu,al
student. This constant adaptation of cues to the student's needs is likely
to be done so quickly and naturally that the teacher appears to be doing
it unconsciously. It becomes almost like a conversation between two
interested people.
3. Adapt cues to class needs. Many teachers plan their instruction
and direct their attention to only a small number of students in the class-
room (Dahloff, 1971; Good and Brophy, 1971). This selective group of
students serves as a mirror to teachers whereby they determine the quality
of cues. This evidence guides teachers in correcting cues, altering them,
or providing additional cues. However, if teachers judge instructional cues
by the reactions of only a few of the best students in class, the cues may
not suit the needs of other students.
However, if teachers direct their attention to a small (four or five)
but representative sample of students in a class, they can determine
whether the cues are effective or ineffective to the entire range of students.
Such a small sample can represent the entire spectrum of capabilities,
interests, and attitudes of students in the class. When teachers alter the
cues or provide additional ones, they are more likely to be responding to
the needs of most of the students. It is desirable to change the sample of
students frequently.
4. Use cues spontaneously. Using cues effectively is one of the most
challenging activities for every teacher. It is also one of the most enjoy-
able parts of instruction. It enables teachers to use their knowledge,
imagination, and experiences to help students learn. Skilled teachers
develop great facility in adapting cues to a variety of circumstances and
to the needs of different students.
We are familiar with an interactive situation F. whicIta tutor almost
unconsciously adapts his or her explanations, demonstrations, examples,
and even the tone of voice to fit the needs of the student. This is not a
highly trained skill for the tutor. Almost anyone can explain something
to someone who knows less about it. A preplanned scenario of words or
activities is not very useful. The interactive process is the key to the
effectiveness of any one-to-one relation in learning or in any communica-
tion process in which two persons participate.
An instructional situation which involves a single student may be
little different than a two-way conversation. But when teaching involves
a class of 20 to 30 students, a more complex interactive process takes
 INSTRUCTIONAL CUES 37

place. Effective use of cues in the class cannot be specifically planned in

advance. Its effectiveness sterns from the constant efforts of the students
and the teacher to communicate about what is to be learned and how it
is to be done. It is a natural and spontaneous process in which a teacher
converses with all the students, while being sensitive to the different needs
signaled by the members of the class.
When cues are clear and adapted to different students, they evoke
the appropriate learning activities in the students. Under these conditions
cues can be instrumental in improving learning of all the students. The
joy of teaching and learning is in this spontaneous interaction.
 /
4. Evaluating Instruction
After new instructional processes have been introduced, their effectiveness
and quality must be.inaintained. Over time use of the processes improves.
Teachers gain experience and adjust to new management and instructional
procedures. Students'beccme more familiar with new content and methods.
'Fsachers, administrators, and supervisors all assume responsibility for
implementing the processes and are able to identify difficulties. This infor-
mation usually serves as a basis for teachers to correct or improve their
effectiveness; it enables them to assess how well the corrective actions
worked and to gain insight into the process of instruction and learning.
In fact, they accept the responsibility for evaluation and assume the role
of evaluators.
In our daily lives we evaluate our environment, instruction, behavior,
or change-in behavior. Yet, a distinction should be made between informal
and formal evaluation. We informally evaluate a lesson we taught or
watched when we say "this was a good lesson:" We informally evaluate
our own behavior when we say that we are not proficient enough at
organizing classroom discussion. We informally evaluate an instructional
experience when we say that participation in a simulation game helped
us become more proficient in listening to students. These are statements
of our decisions and judgments. They do not involve an explicit descrip-
tion of our experiences, nor do they entail the basic data or values that
led us to these decisions or judgments. In informal evaluation, it is enough
that the judgment is made explicit (Wittrock, 1970).
Intelligent, informal evaluation is. based on experiences, values, and
I nowledge, but many educators are slot s4tisfied with exclusive use of
inr-nmal evaluation. Due to the importance/ and consequences of evalua-
tioi:, educators look for more scientific, systerqatic, objective, or formal
measures. Formal evaluation provides explicit' statements of judgments
and decisions and includes objective measures on which to base those
judgments and decisions. Formal evaluation describes why and how we

38
 EVALLIATANG INSTRUCTION 39

reach certain conclusions. For example, a teacher or a supervisor who

judges a lesson favorably provides evidence he or she has collected from
the students, such as their level of interest in the lesson, their judgment
of its clarity, their degree of involvement, or their performante following
the lesson. A teacher may very well describe the pattern of the lesson, the
activities that took place, their sequence, content, level of difficulty, and
so on. In this case, the teacher or the supervisor explicitly states the bases
for his or her judgment.
The word -evaluation" is commonly used for a range of activities
connected with educational practices and programs. In its broadest sense,
it refers to the worth of an educational program or model, or a whole
system of education. It has a more modest meaning when applied to the
appraisal of a segment of instruction. While in the past, evaluation has
been conceived mainly as a process of passing judgment, nowadays it is
seen as a continuous process of collecting information and supplying feed-
back for improvement. Therefore, the role of evaluation is similar to the
role of feedback-corrective procedures discussed in Chapter Two. Feed-
back is provided to or collected by the teacher in relation to a qualitative
standard of desired classroom processes. The corrective procedures are
expected to be developed and used by the teachers themselves.
Classroom Observation
The most prevalent technique for collecting information about class-
room processes is classroom observation. Observational techniques have
been extensively treated in educational literature. The anthology Mirrors
for Behavior (Simon' and Boyer, 1967) contains 92 observational systems.
Although observation is a relatively expensive way of gathering data,
compared with other techniques such as questionnaires or tests, there are
certain situations in which observation is particularly useful and some-
times indispensable.
Observation normally aims at making an objective record of events
or behaviors as they occur. According to Yoloye (1977), in effective
observation, we need to pay attention to the relevant events or behavior,
to make an objective record of the behavior, to present this record in a
manner that will yield meaningful interpretation, and to interpret the data.
Observation techniques are comprised of divergent forms of data
collection such as systematic-observation instruments, rating scales, un-
structured observation, and audio or videotaping.
Systematic observations include all techniques in which predetermined
behaviors or events are observed and recovered systematically according
to predetermined schedules. Systematic observation schemes are divided
into two groups: sign systems and category systems.
40 EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION

Sign systems describe the instructional situation as a snapshot de-

scribes a view. In a sign system attention is focused on a certain set of
behaviors or phenomena; for instance, the teacher uses audio visual aids,
the teacher states the objective of the lesson, the student corrects a mis-
take, and so forth. Typically, the instrument consists of a relatively large
number of well defined behaviors. After a period of observation, all the
behaviors that have occurred are checked. Behaviors that occur more
than once during an observan period are checked only once. It may
also be that during a whole period of observation, no signs will be made
for particular behaviors.
Category systems generally deal with a more restricted number of
behaviors (categories). They are usually recorded continuously, as often
as they occur, in order to produce a moving record of behaviors. The
observer's task is to record behavior as it occurs, perhaps every three
seconds or more often. For example, to measure active learning time,
a trained observer watches each student in a classroom or a representative
group of students for a certain period of time. He or she then codes the
observed behavior as being on-task or off -task. Sometimes these cate-
gories are broken down into a number of particular on or off-task activi-
ties such as writes, listens, asks a question, works with other students,
disturbs other students, waits for the teacher, and so on. The measure of
time or involvement is usually expressed as the percent of total time the
student was on-task or actively involved in particular on-task behaviors.
It is calculated by dividing the number of codings of behavior indicating
student on-task behaviors by the total number of codings and multiplying
by 100:
number of on-task behaviors
X 100
total number of behaviors
While such measures could he derived for each student, one can easily
calculate the mean degree of involvement of active learning time for the
whole classroom by averaging the measures of all students. This also
estimates the degree of variability of student involvement in the class
(Anderson, 1976; Lahaderne, 1968; Levin and others, 1980; Shimron,
1976).
A second procedure used to measure active learning time is the
stimulated-recall procedure developed by Bloom (1953). It estimates the
degree of covert involvement and generally has been used in lecture and
discussion situations. Typically, a tape is made of the lecture as it is
being presented to the students. As soon as possible after the lesson is
completed, the tape is replayed for the students. The tape is stopped at
 EVALUATING INSTRUCTION 41

various points of time and students are asked to recall in several sentences
what they had been thinking at that moment during the lecture. Their
thoughts are classified as being on-task or off -task or as being relevant
or irrelevant to the lesson. In classrooms where "seatwork" is the domi-
nant instructional setting, this procedure is modified since verbal stimulus
is not constantly present in the classroom. The students are asked to
stop working at various stages during the lesson and write in a sentence
or two what they were thinking just prior to being told to stop. Once again,
the thoughts are classified as being on-task or off-task. A measure based
on the ratio of relevant thoughts (on-task) to total thoughts (relevant
and nonrelevant) can then be derived (Krauskopf, 1963; Ozce lik, 1973).
In large scale studies, correlational or experimental observation of
active learning time or the degree of student involvement is only one
observed behavior among other classroom processes. For example, in the
Beginning Teacher Evaluation Study (BTES) (Marliave and others,
1977), students were observed as being engaged (asking questions, mak-
ing verbal statements or responses, making written statements or responses,
listening, or reading) or not engaged (socialing, misbehaving, day-
dreaming, waiting for help). In Solomon's study (Solomon and Kendall,
1976) of 101 observed behaviors of teachers, students, and class organi-
zation, six behaviors were directly indicative of student or class degree of
involvement, including `tall of class or more working intently with teacher
attention," "half of,class or more working intently without teacher atten-
tion," "student listening or watching," and "two or more students not
paying attention to teacher when expected to."
Classroom observations are also the most prevalent technique for
measuring feedback and corrective procedures as well as instructional cues.
However, in contrast to procedures for observing active learning time, the
target of these observations is typically the teacher or the interaction be-
tween the teacher and student. Usually, an observation scheme includes
a description of teacher behaviors manifesting different kinds of feedback
and corrective procedures or instructional cues. The observer is asked to
.
watch the teacher, the class, or an interaction between teacher and stu-
-dents for a period of time and then to code the behaviors that occurred.
For example, Zahorik (1968) classified feedback behaviors of teachers
into 14 categol les. Stallings (1978) includes in her observational schedule
categories such as "adult acknowledges student behavior," "adult gives
negative corrective feedback for task," and "adult gives negative corrective
feedback for behavior." The BTES observational scheme includes such
teacher feedback behaviors as: "the teacher gives information to the stu-
dent about how he or she is performing where no direction or explanation
is involved" (academic feedback), "the teacher asks a question or requests
42 EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION

information from the student in order to assess academic performance"

(academic monitory question), and "the teacher gives the student feed-
back about general, task-related behaviors but not about correctness of
responses- (task engagement feedback ). Anderson and others (1979)
include in their observational system a number of classroom processes
and teacher behaviors that measure feedback-corrective activities, These
include the use of sustaining feedback, a type of feedback belpvior that
gives the student a second chance to correct himself; the use of terminal
feedback in which the teacher supplies the correct answer or asks another
student to answer; the use of process feedback in which the teacher ex-
plains to the students how to figure out an answer. Observed feedback
behaviors used in this study for correct student responses include acknowl-
edgement of student response and repetition of the correct answers.
Similarly, in order to observe instructional cues in the classroom, a
list of teacher behaviors or categories of behaviors is provided to a trained
observer who codes their occurrence. For example, in Solomon's study
the list of teacher's activities includes several behaviors manifesting in-
structional cues such as "the teacher gives directions." "the teacher dis-
cusses or demonstrates use of equipment or material," "the teacher asks
convergent questions," and "the teacher asks a divergent question," An-
derson and others (1979) include in their observation system instruc-
tional cues such as the use of overview or introductory activities for the
lesson, the use of demonstrations, and types of questions.
The most common measure used in most studies is the frequency
(usually in percentages) of feedback-corrective procedures and instruc-
tional cues. A measure that is particularly useful when the category sys-
tem of observation is used is timing of the recorded behavior during the
lesson. Other measures are an index of the variety of the behaviors used,
and the degree or level of adaptability of the behaviors to different students
in the classroom.

Rating Scales
Rating scales are subjective assessments made on an established scale.
They are particularly useful for behaviors that cannot be easily recorded
in discrete terms and therefore cannot be easily quantified by counting
procedures. For example, an observer may be asked to provide informa-
tion on the degree to which the teacher pays attention to the needs of
individual students or the extent to which a student cooperates with class-
mates. For such purposes, the observer needs to observe over a period of
time several behaviors or events that may occur simultaneously and later
quantify these attributes in terms of ratings.
 EVALUATING INSTRUCTION 43

Figure 3. Rating Scales for Measuring Instructional Cues

Complexity of Communication Scale:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Teacher-student inter- Teacher-student inter- Teacher-student inter-
action concentrates action contains some action involves high
on factual information. higher-order ques- proportion of higher-
Questions require tions. "Hows" and order questions.
mostly recall. "whys" sometimes Students required to
-equired. apply, interpret, eval-
uate, and synthesize.

Structuring Scale:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Instruction character- Instruction sometimes Instruction character-
ized by absence of characterized by ized by outlining of
outlining of content, structuring behavior. content, stating ob-
stating objectives, Some aspects of jectives, signaling
signaling transitions, structuring may be transitions, indicating
indicating important present and others important points,
points, reviewing, and may not be present. reviewing, and sum-
summarizing. marizing.

Clarity Scale:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Teacher is not under- Teacher is under- Teacher's communi-
stood by students. stood by students cation understood by
Teacher language is about half the time. students. Students'
overly complex or questions are an-
ambiguous.-Students' swered clearly.
questions'clo not get
answered adequately.

Flexibility Scale:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Lessons are imple- Daily activities are Teacher changes
mented without moderately flexiblE . activities to suit stu-
changes. dents' mood changes
and other conditions.
44 EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION

The more common method involves rating various attributes or be-

haviors by checking such terms as "outstanding." -above average," -aver-
' "below averaae,- and -unsatistaetorv.- Other methods for structur-
ing the scale include numbers increasing from one up to live or more,
when one is the lowest rating indicating very poor and the is the highest
indicating very good. Ordinarily, a rating form will include certain state-
ments that specify the behaviors corresponding to the various points on
the rating form.
For example, in measuring active learning time or the degree of stu-
dent involvement, an observer may rate the extent or the quality of student
participation on a scale of one to five points, where one refers to the
student having never been on-task and five refers to the student having
been consistently on-task. This measure of involvement is not in terms of
amount or percent of time at all. It is, rather, a more subjective report
which measures how well the student has spent his or her time.
Similarly, in measuring instructional cues or feedback-corrective pro-
cedures, it is possible to construct an appropriate and relevant rating scale
and to ask an observer to use it at the end of an observed lesson or at
particular times during the lesson. The BTES uses several 7-point rating
scales, some of which actually measure instructional cues. One scale item,
Complexity of Community, measures the complexity of the verbal inter-
action between the teacher and students. If the interactions require mental
processes beyond recall of knowledge, then the communication is relatively
complex. The seven end of the scale is represented by communication that
involves many high mental process questions. Figure 3 shows examples
of four BTES scales.
Rating scales measure the quality of cues used in one lesson or an
average of cues used in several lessons. They do not measure frequency,
variety, or adaptability of feedback-corrective procedures for individual
students. If these measures are important to the teacher or evaluator, spe-
cific scales should be developed.

Student uestionnaires
Another prevalent technique for collecting information about class-
room processes is the use of student questionnaires. The questions may be
open-ended, requiring respondents to answer in their own words, or mul-
tiple-choice, requiring repondents to select one or more answers from
among those provided. It is also possible to provide the respondents with
checklists or rating scales.
Questionnaires have several advantages: they are relatively inexpen-
sive to administer; they can be administered at a convenient or relevant
 EVALUATING INSTRUCTION 45

time during the class; they can be designed to maintain respondents'

anonymity; and they can he standardized. Student questionnaires are
particularly useful for teachers since they do not require an outside ob-
server. Underlying the approach of student self-report questionnaires is
the belief that students themselves form a group of sensitive, well informed
judges of their classroom process. Their reports may, then, serve as a
mirror for the teacher.
In a study by Gage (1976) on teacher effectiveness in explaining,
students rated the lesson on the following, aspects of instructional processes
derived from the Stanford Teacher Competence Appraisal Guide: clarity
of aims, organization of the lecture, beginning the lecture, clarity of pres-
entation, pacing the lecture, pupil attention, ending the lecture, teacher-
pupil rapport, and amount of learning. For each dimension, the ratings
were made on a 7-point scale ranging from "truly exceptional" to "weak"
with an additional category for "unable to observe."
After each lesson, students described their degree of involvement in
an Attention Report:
During this lecture, my mind wandered and I began to think about
other things:
(0) all of the, time
(1) most of the time
(2) some of the time
(3) a little bit of the time
(4) none of the time
Similarly, Brown and Holtzman (1967) asked students to respond
"true" or "false" to items on the Survey of Study Habits and Attitudes,
which deal with student activities during and after group instruction. It
includes such items as:
(a) I do not bother to correct errors on the papers my teacher grades
and returns.
(b) I find myself taking down unimportant notes during class.
(c) I hesitate to ask the teacher for further explanation of an assign-
ment that is not clear to me. 1

A similar approach has been used by Hecht (1977), who developed

an activities checklist consisting of 53 short statements. For each state-
ment, the student has to indicate if the statement applied to his or her
thoughts and actions during class or if it did not apply. The student must
respond to every .item. The statements are concerned with four aspects
of classroom processes: the effectiveness of instructional cues, feedback-
corrective procedures, student participation (involvement), and reinforce-
ment.
46 EFhEL11vt, '.i lt.t I ION

Content Analysis
Much of schk I learning and instruction inyo ;:s written materials
such as textbooks, -kbooks, activity packaoes, and the like. Due to the
multitude of these educational material~_ is important to know how effec-
tive they are in helping teachers pursue desired instructional strategies,
Content analysis can determine which materials are appropriate and of a
high quality.
Content analysis is a general assessment technique by which complex
materials such as textbooks can be reduced to simpler terms; for instance,
categorization of content, level of mental functioning, readability scores,
and so on. We need to specify what features of the textbook make it
appropriate for particular instructional processes. For example, if variety
of corrective procedures or alternative forms of content presentation ark
desired instructional procedures, we would assess the degree to which the
instructional materials are suitable for such features. Other features may
include the nature of topic organization, the kinds and amount of practice
exercises, the availability of feedback and corrective means, or the availa-
bility of explicit statements of objectives.
It is also possible to assess whether the materials are feasible and
practical for use by teachers or students. Do teachers need special training
in order to understand the materials? What special teaching or learning
problems are likely to occur with these materials?
Lash (1974) focused on four general constructs relevant to the nature
and quality of many available instructional materials: objectives, organiza-
tion (scope and sequence), methodology, and evaluation. Under each con-
struct, several typical approaches or features of instructional material's are
listed. For instance, under the objectives construct there are several ques-
tions to be answered "yes" or "no," such as Are objectives stated for the
use of the material? Are they general objectives, instructional objectives,
and so on? At the end of each section, the evaluator is asked to use a 7-
point scale to judge the overall worth of the instructional materials.
Among the other systems that analyze instructional materials are A
Source Book for the Evaluation of Instructional Material and Media
(Armstrong, 1973) and The Social Studies Curriculum Analysis Short
Form (Kownslar, 1974) .

Content analysis of instructional Materials is valuable not only for

selecting new materials but also for analyzing existing materials. It helps
teachers determine to what extent mate ials can be used to implement de-
sired instructional processes and disco er deficiencies that require changes
or supplementary materials in the clas/sroom.
 EVA1 LATIN v tv FRUC HON 47

Techniques for Self-Evaluation

Particular emphasis is given to teachers" self - evaluation techniques
in their own classrooms. Three possible instruments are the teacher self-
evaluation checklist, the student self-report checklist, and the questionnaire
for analyzing instructional and learning materials.
The teacher's self-evaluation checklist (Figure 4) includes 45 state-
ments that describe a teacher's activities in the classroom regarding feed-
back-corrective procedures (statements 2), instructional cues ( state-
ments 1 and the facilitation of student involvement in learning
(statements 33-45). Many teachers assess the strengths and weaknesses
of their instruction at the end of a lesson or at the end of a school day.
This checklist can help teachers evaluate their instructional and manage-
ment procedures.
A teacher may find that he or she has not included all of the suggested
instructional procedures in each lesson. Nevertheless, over a period of
time most positive and desired behaviors should occur. Ultimately, a
teacher should expect to get more "yes" responses to positive (+ ) state-
ments and mare "no" responses to negative ( statements.

Figure 4. Teacher's Self-Evaluation Checklist

Directions: The following statements describe some activities and charac-

teristics of classroom instruction that are believed to be useful in improv-
ing the learning of most students. Please read each statement and indicate
whether it reflects your activities or feelings in your class today, The an-
swer far each statement is either Yes or No.

In my class today:

YES NO
+ 1. I let students know how well their learning is
progressing.
+ 2. I let students know what they still have to learn

to achieve mastery or correct their mistakes,

3. I did not state explicitly enough the mastery
criteria students need to achieve.
4. I referred students to alternative instructional

materials to correct test items they missed (or

correct misunderstandings).
÷ 5. I formed group activities to encourage students
to help each other master the materials taught.
 EFT E INSTIALC NON

YES NO

6. I did not stress what the students accomplished;

I mainly emphasized what they have not accom-
plished.
+ 7. I used different mastery criteria for different stu-
dents in the class.
+ 8. I assigned additional homework assignments to
students who have not reached the mastery
criteria.
9. My reactions to students' responses were not
satisfactory; I simply stated whether they re-
sponded correctly or incorrectly.
± 10. I repeated students' correct responses to en-
sure that each student heard.
+ it I explained again to the whole class the test
items that most students did not answer cor-
rectly.
± 12. I invited a few students for an afternoon session
to explain their mistakes.
± 13. I started the lesson by stating the specific ob-
jectives of the lesson.
+ 14. I wrote an outline of the lesson on the black-
board.
+15 I related the new ideas taught in class to earlier
content.
16. The sequence of activities within the lesson
seemed difficult to most students.
17. I encouraged students to practice exercises that
stress mainly lower levels of thinking.
18. Practice exercises were very similar to each
other.
19. I did not provide sufficient verbal explanations
to accompany 'demonstrations.
20. I did not use enough cues of different natures
to adapt to the needs of different students.
21. I watched carefully students' (or a representa-
tive group of students') facial expressions to
see if I needed to give further cues or explana-
tic ns.
iult my use of cues was spontaneous.
I had difficulties using the audio-visual aids.
+ 24. I encouraged students to ask questions before
I moved to a new topic.
+ 25. I gave a brief summary of the major ideas (or
skills) at the end of the lesson.

* This may be a positive procedure in some instances,

but not egularly.
 EVALUATING INSTRUCTION 49

YES NO
+ 26. At the end of the lesson, I restated the objec-
tives of the lesson.
± 27. Most of my questions were answered correctly
by the students.
28. Most of the higher level questions were not
answered correctly.
+ 29 I realized what kind of cues are helpful to weak
students and which are helpful to better stu-
dents.
+ 30. After I asked a particular student a question,
gave the child enough time to respond.
+ 31. I emphasized the imoortance of a topic (con-
cept or skill) by explicitly stating its importance.
+ 32. Before I moved to teach a new concept (topic or
skill) I indicated the transition to the students.
33. I called on students to respond in a particular

order (for example, alphabetically or by seating

arrangement).
+ 34. Most of the students participated in the discus-
sions.
+ 35. I prepared instructional and learning aids be-
fore the lesson began.
-F38. I moved about in the classroom.
± 37. I changed the pattern of instruction used in
vious lessons.
+ 38. I -einforced verbally or otherwise the attention
and participation of the class as a whole.
39. I was unable to use examples of a high level of
Interest for the students.
+ 40. I realized that a few students were unable to
participate actively; I asked them to come and
talk to me after the lesson.
41. I wasted too much time on ,organizational
issues.
4. I faced more discipline problems than usual
it seems to be due to a lack of clarity.
+ 43 I used individual rewards or reinforcement
(verbal or other kinds) for good or attentive
behaviors.
+ 44. I changed the seating arrangement of the stu-
dents.
+ 45. I asked a student to repeat responses or ex-
planations given by another student.

' This may be a positive procedure in some instances,

but not regularly.
50 EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION

The student self-report checklist (Figure 5) includes 25 statements

describing student activities and thoughts during a class. The statements are
concerned with student behaviors in relaiion to feedback-corrective pro-
cedures (1-8), instructional cues (9-18), and the degree of their involve-
ment in learning (19-25 ). Instruction is effective in facilitating student
learning if students understand what they have to do and if they take an
active part in the process. Therefore. to evaluate the effectiveness of our
instruction, it is not enough to assess whether we have used the most
desirable instructional procedures. We must look at students as the mirror
for our efforts, and to learn whether instructional activities were clear and
helpful and whether they evoked desired behaviors.
The student self-report checklist is relatively short and may be used
at the end of each lesson or two lessons. A teacher also may decide to
shorten the checklist to include fewer statements from each section. We
suggest choosing different statements and changing their order so as to
avoid pat responses from the students each time the checklist is used. Ask
for anonymity to ensure frankness and openness in students' responses.
Teachers can easily summarize the results of their students' responses
by counting the number of "favorable" or "unfavorable" responses to
each item. Favorable responses are composed of "Yes" answers to positive
statements and "No" answers to negative statements. Unfavorable re-
sponses are composed of "No" answers to positive statements and "Yes"
answers to negative statements.
The negative and positive signs should not appear on the checklists
given to students.

Figure 5. Student Self-Report Checklist

Directions: The following statements describe student activities and

thoughts during classroom lessons. Please read each statement and
check (;) YES it It applies to your thoughts or actions during class today.
Check () NO next to those statements that do not apply. Do not write your
name on the paper. We wish to use your responses and those of your
classmates to help improve classroom instruction and learning.

During class today:

YES NO

+ 1. I tried to figure out exactly where I went wrong

in a problem.
2. The teacher s remark clarified the source of my
mistake.
 EVAt.u.NTING loN 51

YES NO

± 3. I asked for help from another student in order to

correct a mistake I made.
4. I was reluctant to look for help from the text-
book suggested by the teacher in order to cor-
rect a mistake.
5. I know precisely what I am expected to achieve
in the coming test.
6. I didn't know for sure how well I progressed in
my learning.
÷ 7. I asked the teacher a question when I didn't
understand something.
8. I didn't know what to do when I answered a
problem incorrectly.
+ 9. understood how the topics covered in class
I

were related to preQious topics we learned.

10. I had some troubles understanding the objec-
tives of today's lesson.
+ 11. It was clear to me what I had to do to solve the
practice exercises.
-1- 12. I felt the demonstrations provided to me in class
were very helpful.
13_ I could easily identify and follow the sequence
of the lesson.
14. I thought the teacher moved along too quickly.
15. The use of pictures would have helped me
understand better the ideas taught in class
today.
± 16. I tried to visualize in my head the problems we
discussed.
-7 17. I was able to separate the important issues from
the details.
18. The use of different kinds of explanations to the
same problem was extremely helpful to me.
19. I didn't raise my hand at all in class today.
20. It was hard to start working.
21. I paid attention almost the whole class period.
22. I wrote down some things (notes) about what we
learned.
23. I thought about something besides the lesson
during class.
24. I participated in class activities although they
weren't very interesting.
25. I started to lose my concentration toward the
end of class.
 EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION

The questionnaire for analyzing instructional and learning materials

(Figure 6) is designed to help teachers or administrators decide whether
new materials or existing ones can facilitate instructional procedures. It
also may help teachers decide whether they can ask some students to work
on their own using the materials while teachers give individual attention
and guidance to other students. Analysis of the materials helps teachers
prepare in advance ;additional instructional aids or procedures.

Figure 6. Questionnaire for Analyzing Instructional and Learning

Materials

Directions: The following questions refer to selected aspects of instruc-

tional and learning materials. Answer each of the questions to help you
decide whether or not to use selected materials in your own classroom.

Performance Criteria:
1. Are the criteria- for student performance specified? Yes
2. If criteria are specified, what is the typical level re-
quired?
(a) 80% 100% correct answers
(b) 60% 80% correct answers
(c) less than 60% correct answers
3. Are there indications or recommendations for various
types of criteria for different students in the class? Yes
Feedback information:
4. Are there recommended evaluation procedures for
students? Yes No
5. Are the evaluation procedures or instruments com-
patible with the instructional objectives? Yes No
6. Do the materials include recommendations (or sug-
gestions) for when to collect feedback information? Yes No

Correctives:
7. Are there recommendations for corrective measures
of student misunderstandings? Yes No
8. Are alternative explanations available for the basic
or important instructional objectives? Yes No
9. Are references to additional textbooks for further ex-
planations specified? Yes No
10. Is there a list or a description of the necessary pre-
requisites for the major instructional objectives? Yes No

Instructional Cues:,
11. Do the materials include a statement of instructional
objectives? Yes
 E MATING INSTRUCTION 53
12. Is the statement of objectives clear and detailed to
be helpful for teachers or students? Yes No
13. Do the materials include paragraphs that relate new
topics to previous topics? Yes No
14. Are questions inserted in the materials at the end of
a topic or subtopic? Yes No
5. Are these questions mainly factual (lower level ques-
tions)? Yes No
16, Are answers provided to tho questions posed in the
materials? Yes No
17. Do the materials include figures, pictures, or demon-
strations? Yes No
18. Are the figures, pictures, or demonstrations clear and
helpful? Yes No
19. Do the materials include practice exercises? Yes No
20. Are the practice exercises homogeneous (similar to
each other)? Yes No
21. Are there recommendations for different ways of
introducing a topic for students of different achieve-
ment levels? Yes No
22. Is the sequence of instruction proposed in the ma-
terials appropriate? Yes No
23, What is the nature of the sequence?
(a) From easy to more difficult tasks
(b) Chronological sequence
(c) Category organization (according to subtopics)
(d) From abstract to concrete
(e) Others
24. Are there brief summaries or reviews of the major
ideas at the end of a topic or chapter? Yes No
25. Are there suggestions for using instructional games
or other learning aids? Yes No
25. Can the materials be used effectively by a teacher
with no special training? Yes No
27. The materials can be used effectively by most stu-
dents.
(a) Strongly agree
(b) Moderately agree
(c) Agree
(d) Disagree
(e) Strongly disagree
28. The materials will help you implement he classroom
processes suggested in this book.
(a) Strongly agree
(b) Moderately agree
(c) Agree
(d) Disagree
(e) Strongly disagree
5. Implications for Teaching
and Learning
The social and teehnological changes in modern societies have brought
about great and rapid changes in the nature and functions of school
systems throughout the world. The demand for mass education and the
dissatisfaction with schools have challenged educators to seek ways of
adapting education to the needs of all students. If schoo:s are to achieve
the major goals of education in modern society, teachers must learn to
work in different ways to improve the learning of a wide range of students.
Parents and students also need to accommodate themselves to the demands,
expectations, and opportunities that schools can and should provide.
Teachers and educational researchers have sought new solutions and
new ways of studying the processes involved in school learning. In the past,
researchers tended to stress the effects of relatively stable characteristics
of students or teachers. For example, much work has been done to develop
intelligence and aptitude tests and to examine the degree to which student
characteristics predict scholastic achievement. Teachers and administrators
have used these tests to account for difficulties in learning. The effect was
to weed out those students whose test scores were regarded as too low
( without regard for the causes of low scores). Similarly, much research
has been carried out on the relationship between teachers' characteristics
(personality, training, verbal ability, and so on) and the effectiveness of
their instruction. This approach suggested that effective teaching could be
expected only from a limited group of teachers.
A lot of research on school learning has emphasized associational
relationships between a set of variables (usually unalterable variables) and
student achievement on a desired set of learning outcomes. These relation-
ships indicate the predictive value of variables and may suggest possible
causal relationships among them. But the emphasis on unalterable charac-
teristics of teachers and students greatly limits the relevance of such
research as a basis for improving learning. There is no doubt that students
and teachers differ in their cultural background, personality, intelligence,

54
 !NINA IONS FOR TFAcHING AND I.F.O.NiNG

and aptitudes. But if these are highly stable characteristics that cannot be
readily altered, we can do little with such research findings.
More recently, researchers have begun to focus on the alterable char-
acteristics of students and teachers and their interrelations in the classroom.
Greater attention is now given to causal relationships between student
achievement and interest in learning. the teacher's use of time, and instruc-
tional strategies. To establish casual links, researchers carry out experi-
ments using varying instructional processes and examine their differential
effects on student learning. The coal of such research is to determine which
approaches have the greatest direct effect on learning processes and
products. These studies, when carried out in classroom learning situations,
identify instructional and learning conditions that have maximal effect on
students' achievement, interests, and attitudes. Moving from the study of
a small number of relatively stable characteristics of teachers and students
to a much larger set of alterable and interactive processes enables teachers
and researchers to identify some of the essential conditions for learning
and instruction.
We have provided evidence about teaching and learning processes
that can be used to meet the new needs and demands of the educational
system. Management and instructional processes, learning materials, and
activities that are carefully developed and used widely can enhance stu-
dents' ability to attend, to focus on the relevant aspects of ideas being
taught, to master the objectives set for them, to retain knowledge, and
ultimately to learn how to learn. These classroom processes help facilitate
students' attitudes about learning and schools, and about themselves. If
such procedures and experiences are not adequately planned or imple-
mented, we limit students' ability to take an active role in the process of
learning, to achieve desired learning goals, and to view education as a
desired and attainable challenge.
Doyle and Ponder (1977) suggest that teachers are most likely to
accept advice for improving their teaching when it meets three criteria.
The advice must be operational and deeribe actual teacher behaviors; it
must be consistent with the teacher's own role definition; and it must
cost-effective in terms of time and energy. The instructional and manage-
ment procedures emphasized in this book meet these three criteria. They
are operational, based on classroom research; as such, they are consistent
with teachers' practice and view of their role. Yet they allow enough
variety and freedom for teachers to choose and use them idiosyncratically
so as to optimally match their self-role definition. They do not require
special means, techniques, or instruments. They are mainly based on exist-
ing means in a typical school and classroom. They are also rooted in the
teacher's knowledge, sensitivity, intuition, and interest in his or her work.
56 iiii FR!, Iti,-;1

Thus, not too much additional energy is required to implement an effective

instructional prociMure. Its cost, when judged in terms of improving student
lefirning and increasing to:0er satisfaction, is sell -evident,

The Question of Individual Differences

A major implication of our approach to learning and instruction is
concerned with the concept of educational practices and the question of
individual differences. There is a prevailing view among many educators
that not all students can learn what schools and teachers desire to teach or
achieve. Consequently, individual differences provide a ready-made excuse,
and the blame for students' inability to learn is placed on the students'
genetic or environmental background. Only on rare occasions do we hear
teachers explaining students' inability to learn as a result of the way they
were taught.
Individual differences among students. differences over which the
school has no control, do exist. Yet these individual differences are not
necessarily reflected in student learning outcomes. On the contrary, indi-
vidual differences should and must be reflected in the processes of learning
and instruction, According to Bloom (1976), if teachers or curriculum
developers can identify the cognitive prerequisites (skills and knowledge)
and affective entry characteristics (attitude, interest, self-concept), and
ensure that all students sufficiently possess them, it would be possible to
reduce individual differences in student achievement by up to 75 percent.
That is, most students would achieve roughly the same high level usually
attained by only the best students.
Studies and large-scale projects using the mastery learning strategy
prove that this is indeed possible. Moreover, the experience accumulated
from the mastery learning strategy demonstrates that the improved achieve-
ment of lower ability students (under mastery learning conditions) does
not come at the expense of the achievement of higher ability students.
Mastery learning conditions seem to bring the achievement level of :ower
ability students up to the level of their higher ability classmates, rather than
dragging down the achievement of the higher ability students. There are
also indications that mastery learning conditions can reduce individual dif-
ferences not only in achievement, but also in the rates of learning and for-
getting. The major instructional procedure that aids in achieving these
results is adequate feedback-corrective procedures in relation to a pre-
determined performance standard.
A thorough selection of instructional cues and an adequate and sensi-
tive use of alternative patterns of instruction also ftirther reduce individual
differences in student learning outcomes. Varied cues, an appropriate
 I' 1. ICA 1-10 s Fug, TEACHING AND LEARNING 57

sequence of instruction, the timing of transition from one activity to the

next, a rataonally based and sensitive definition of the performance stand-
ard. and a careful use of reinforeemcnt and rewards are sonic effective
methods for matching or adapting learning opportunities to existing dif-
ferences among students. Adapting instructional and learning processes to
the needs of individual students ensures that individual differences will not
condition the level of achievement of most students.
Such adaptation does not necessarily require the implementation of
individualized instructional programs, which sometimes necessitates major
changes in the physical organization of the class or the school. It is feasible
to adjust existing instructional and learning processes to students' back-
grounds, abilities. interests, and learning styles within the framework of
group instruction. A teacher can use variety of spontaneous or planned
methods that are appropriate to different individuals in a whole classroom
setting. A teacher may also decide occasionally to use different instruc-
tional settings such as small group activities or individual seatwork. These
are effective as long as the basic principles of effective learning and in-
struction are followed.
Anyone can develop the ability to properly adjust to individual differ-
ences. Our .suecess as teachers depends on several factorscontinuous
experiences with relevant behaviors, willingness to change and correct pro-
cedures through formal or informal self-evaluation of behaviors, positive
and sensitive acceptance of students' responses to classroom processes,
confidence in our ability to teach, and our expectations and beliefs in the
potential of school and schooling for all students.
Teachers' expectations are evident in inferential judgments about stu-
dent behaviors. Many teachers begin a course or a new term expecting that
about a third of their students will adequately learn what they have to
teach. They expect another third to fail or just "get by." They expect the
remainder to learn a good deal of what is taught, but not enough to be
regarded as "i.zood students" These expectations are sometimes supported
by s.:hool policies and grading practices that are transmitted to the stu-
dents through grading procedures. Research evidence in both naturalistic
and experimental studies have shown that teacher expectations indeed
affect how much students learn (Braun, 1976; Brophy and Good, 1974).
How can we explain such a phenomenon? Why and under what conditions
can teachers' expectations influence who will learn and how much will be
lea rued?
Ordinarily, expectations result from observed behaviors rather than
cause them. Yet, if expectations are inflexible and rigid, they are capable
also of causing future behaviors and performance. This self-fulfilling
prophecy occurs when an expectation or prediction, initially false, initiates
 58 EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION

a- -series of events that cause the original expectation to come about. Thus,
when a teacher's expectation acts as a self-fulfilling prophecy, it functions
as a cause of student behavior rather than as a result of observed behavior.
Since expectations affect our perceptions as well as our behaviors, teachers
may develop, consciously or unconsciously, a tendency to notice evidence
of failure in students while disregarding students' success or their potential
to succeed. Such a mechanism of selective perception of teachers is danger-
_ ous since it is likely to reinforce low expectations.
Research evidence suggests that teachers sometimes tend to prefer
students from higher social class homes, to overestimate their ability and
to develop great hopes for their academic performance. Researchers also
noticed that when this is so, teachers tend to make more frequent and
facilitating patterns of interaction in the class with the preferred students.
in contrast,- there is v,idence (Brophy and Good, 1974) that the most
effective teachers have realistic and correct expectations concerning their
students. They are neither overly romantic nor painfully discouraged. They
tend to recognize real differences among students, but they use this infor-
mation to plan their instruction in order to optimally assist all students
in the classroom. They do not merely label students or use differences
among students as an excuse for failing to teach them adequately.
Adapting to the needs of ,the individual student is extremely chal-
lenging to teachers and educators. his essential, therefore, that teachers
and educators realize such adaptation is feasible. This will enable them to
develop adequate instructional procedures as well as realistic expectations
and a flexible approach to teaching. Rigid or false attitudes or expectations
result in less effective instruction. It is also likely to reinforce the view that
only some students are capable of achievinga view that has been an
educational restraint for a long time.

Classroom Climate
One may feel that analyzing classroom processes separately may cause
us to lose the picture and characteristics of the class as a whole. Indeed,
there are global properties of classes that determine the quality of life in
the classroom.
vvp often think of a classroom as the context or environment in which
instruction and learning take place. ThiS encompasses the conditions,
forces, and external stimuli that impinge on the students and the teacher.
According to Dewey (1916), environment is "the particular medium in
which an individual exists which leads him to see and feel one thing rather
than another . . it strengthens some beliefs and weakens others, it gradu-
.

ally produces in him a certain system of behavior . . the environment

 IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING 59

consists of those conditions that promote or hinder, stimulate or inhibit

the characteristics or activities of 'a human being." A classroom is then, a
particular kind of environment in which physical, psychological, social, and
intellectual stimuli set the conditions for the behaviors of students and
teachers. Those conditions give a class its particular character.
Anyone who has ever taught knows that a classroom possesses a
distinct atmosphere or climate. Some classes are more or less organized;
some classes manifest tension and anxiety; others communicate a great
degree of freedom for individual students. Instructional and learning cli-
mate can be thought of as the generalized attitudes, feelings, and At tions
that prevail in a class.
Five major dimensions of classroom climate are direct consequences
of the instructional procedures and principles emphasized in this book:
academic orientation; teacher directiveness; structure; cooperation and
affiliation (social reactions); and support and concern for individuality.
1. Academic orientationthe focus and emphasis given in a class-
room to academic activities. The principles and procedures we have sug-
gested lead to classes that have a high level of academic orientation, that
is, classrooms in which most activities are centered around the accomplish-
ment of academic objectives.
Teachers in such classes maintain a strong academic focus by using
the time allocated for instructional purposes in a way that enables them to
spend the least amount of time on nonacademic Vivifies. They organize
classroom processes in different ways to ensure an -)ptimal degree of stu-
dent involvement in academic activities. High lev s of academic orienta-
tion may be inferred from the frequency of li ework assignments and
from the kinds of activities students are-incouraged to be engaged in-
outside the classroom periods. ---
Classrooms of low r moderate academic orientation spend a con-
siderable amount of on additional stimulations, such as games, stories,
or discussions t are not directly relevant to the learning objectives. Pis--
cipline and ganizational problems use up time originally allocated for
instruction:Homework assignments are optional and academically oriented
out-of-class activities are not encouraged.
2. Teacher directivenessthe nature of authority or leadership in the
class. Classrooms in which activities are controlled and guided by teachers
have relatively strong teacher directiveness. The teacher is perceived as a
strong leader who directs student activities and leaves relatively little free-
dom for students to select their learning tasks, their seats, or their learning
methods. The teacher decides on the objectives to be Nastered and the
performance standards, and monitors student learning, supervises individual
students as well as groups, reinforces activities, and provides rewards.
60 EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION

Typically, a teacher rrtaintains control by judging what shall be done, who

shall do it, and when.
Classps in which students take a major part in decisions tray be
viewed as having weak teacher directiveness. In these classes students have
freedom to move about, talk to each other, and work with one another.
They also!accept the responsibility for their own performance and achieve-
ment.
The /procedures we emphasize encourage the creation of classrooms
where the teacher assumes dominant leadership. This may sound to some
as eretittng a formal, cold, nonpermissive, and authoritative climate: -This is
clearly not the case. Although students m,-.y have little freedom in decisions,
they have much freedom in helping the teacher structure effective instruc-
tion. By communicating to the teacher their difficulties, by responding to
the teacher's questions or requests, the students play a crucial role in the
decision-making process. We have emphasized the central role of students
in shaping and affecting the process of instruction by serving as a mirror
to the teacher. This divides the responsibility for effective learning and
instruction between the students and the teacher. Thus, in some aspects
of classroom life, students' freedom is quite limited. Yet, in other aspects,
students are active partners in the instructional process orchestrated by the
teacher.
3. Structurethe nature of classroom organization. In highly struc-
tured classrooms, there is a clear and careful plan of well organized activi-
ties. Teachers in highly structured classrooms can easily relate previous
ideas or activities to ptesent and future ones. Transition from one activity
to the next is smooth and rationally based. Similarly, teachers in highly
structured classes manage to channel diverse activities that occur simul-
taneously. Rules are explicitly stated and clearly understood by students.
Students usually know when to learn, what to learn, and why.
Classrooms in which activities are not well organized and the lesson
plans unclear are low structured classes. In low structured classes, it is
difficult to infer the rationale behind the sequence of activities, nor does
the sequence offer orientation for the teacher and the students. Rules for
conduct in the classroom are frequently changed and students may become
confused about their expected roles and about ideas they need to learn.
One need not practice rigidity or inflexibility to establish structured
instructional situations. Structure refers mainly to systematic patterns of
instruction and classroom management. It refers to planned activities, but
these may also he accompanied by spontaneous and intuitive instructional
cues. Structure does not connote rigidity; it implies a framework within
which much flexibility is feasible. and desirable.
 IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING 61

4. Cooperation and affiliationthe interpersonal relationships among

students in the class. Classrooms in which studen4 come to know each
other and help each other master personal and group goals are considered
high in:cooperation -and affiliation. Often, a high level of cooperation and
affiliation in the class is inferred from the ways in which students resolve
academic and social problems that occur in class. In contrast, there are
classrooms in which much time and energy is spent on competition and
hostility among peers. Students often compete for the teacher's attention,
for grades and rewards, or for leadership in the class. In such classes, the
potential for a student's isolation is high; the formation of small cliques is
likely; and a lack of solidarity and mutual concern is strongly felt.
Effective classroom processes, their implicit values and explicit mani-
festations, encourage a great deal of cooperation and affiliation among
students. For example, the definition of a performance standard expected
of all students in the class gives them a common goal and a common
challenge to meet as a group. Corrective procedures form the framework
within which close acquaintance, cooperation, and mutual concern are
enhanced. Highly succeeding students, those who perform faster and better,
become models rather than leaders or stars. Student evaluation becomes a
less threatening experience. It is not a process in which a student's progress
is judged in relation to his or her classmates (norm reference). Rather, it
is based on a criterion reference judgmentthe degree to which students
have reached the criterion set for them.
We do not foresee a class as a place in which social pressures, tension,
competition, or quarrels are totally nonexistent. They are not feasible or
desired, however. The class is a place in which students learn to live
together for a relatively long period of time. It provides experiences likely
to be found outside the classroom and in adult life. It may sometimes
resemble experiences within a large family. Yet, the conditions of learning
created in the classroom provide students with social skills and personal
confidence which will enable them to resolve social conflicts or pressures
in a frank, open, and sensitive manner.
5. Support and concern for individualitythe extent to which dif-
ferences among students in the classroom are accepted, respected, and
adequately treated. In classes where strong support and concern for indi-
viduality exist, teachers manage to feel or diagnose individual differences
and to use them as a guide in their instructional plans and decisions.
Similarly, students become aware of and tolerant toward differences among
each other. In classrooms where weak support and concern for individuality
is communicated, teachers either are not aware enough of real differences
among students or do not use these differences appropriately in their
instructional processes. Verbal or nonverbal emphasis only of individual
62 EFFECTIVE ISSTRUCTION

differences becomes destructive if it is accompanied by a negative attitude

toward such differences and helps to develop unreal and rigid expectations
of teachers and students.
In previous chapters we focused mainly on instructional procedures
that take into account differences among students in their pace of learning,
style, and ability to learn. Yet, there are many more potential aspects to
differences among students such as their interests, motivations, desires,
aspirations, moods, and needs. Thus, we may refer to the "group per-
sonality" of a classroom when we speak of the class as a social unit, but
we need to realize that a group personality is compounded by the per-
sonality of each individual in the class.
Our basic thesis behind effective classroom processes regards the
individual student as a mirror for the teacher's decisions and behaviors
and fosters the creation of a climate offering a high degree of support
and concern for individuality. The development of an atmosphere in
which differences among students are respected requires concern for the
student's background, performance, and needs; different patterns of instruc-
tion; a variety of instructional cues; monitoring performance and progress;
and various kinds of rewards adapted to student needs.
Typically. teachers' behaviors and attitudes serve as a model for
students. Students learn to respect each other, to appreciate differences
among themselves, to be realistic, and to learn to use their differences in
a way that satisfies the needs of the group as well as the personal needs
of individuals. They 'spend their time and energy constructively and thus
create an extremely humane atmosphere.
The classroom provides a continual source of actual and potential
stimuli, demands, and consequences. Students do not behave in a vacuum.
They respond in a particular environmental context that in part, deter-
mines their behaviors. In addition, their attitudes, expectations, feelings,
and needs determine, to some extent, the nature of the forces that exist in
their environment. Yet the teach and the instructional processes are
mainly responsible for developing a ssroom climate. Teachers structure
and restructure learning situations tha determine the nature and power of
the forces and demands in the classroo _. This produces different kinds of
emotional, social, and intellectual c that have different effects on
student achievement.
In this book we have concentrated on a few instructional and learning
processes believed to have the greatest effect on the improvement of
learning and teaching. These processes and the variety of ways they can
be implemented may bring a new reality to the quality of life in the class-
rooma reality that enables students to meet the needs and demands of
society. Teachers and educators must be willing to give up some of their
 PLICATIONS FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING 63

traditional and comfortable beliefs about effective instruction and life in

the classroom.
There is larger number of variables and instructional processes that
have smaller effects on learning and instruction. We must constantly search
for additional variables that may have equal or greater effects on edu-
cational outcomes than those discussed here. Clearly, there is much need
for further research. The quest for the improvement of education and
student learning is never-ending.
Annotated Bibliography
Articles written during the past two decades that emphasize the strengths of
the procedures explained in this book.

Anderson, Lorin, W. "An Empirical Investigation of Individual Differences in

Time to Learn," Journal of Educational Psychology 68 (1976): 223-233.
An investigation of the magnitude and stability of individual differences
in the amount of time required to achieve a criterion level of performance.
The study hypothesized that students who are provided with additional
time and help to attain criterion levels in the early units of a three-unit
sequence spend approximately the same amount of time-on-task to attain
the criterion level on a final unit as students who attain the criterion on
the early units with no extra time and help. Ninety eighth-grade students
taken from a middle-class population participated in the study. They were
randomly assigned either to a mastery learning class, in which they were
helped to attain an 85 percent mastery standard, or to one of two non-
mastery classes. Students in all three groups learned a three-unit sequence
of programmed material in Matrix arithmetic. All students were given the
programmed text and a unit formative test. They were instructed to write
on their booklet the time they began working. When they finished the
booklet, they again wrote down the time and picked up the formative test.
They wrote the time they began work on the formative test, when they
completed the test, and when they finished it. All three classes proceeded in
the same manner up to this point. In the mastery learning class, students who
did not attain the 85 percent criterion level were asked to complete review
exercises that were keyed to each item of the test. The students recorded their
review time They were then given a review test and once again asked to re-
cord the time they began and the time they finished. Every student in the
mastery class was able to attain an 85 percent criterion level with no more
than two review-corrective periods. The students in the nonmastery groups
did not receive extra help and time for corrective purposes. Two measures of
learning time were used in the study: elapsed time and time-on-task.
Elapsed time refers to the amount of clock time that passed between the

64
 ANNOTATED BIBLIOG APIIY 65

beginning and end of the actual learning time (with testing time not
included). This was calculated for each student, based on his or her re-
cording. Time-on-task refers to the time during which the student was
actively involved in learning. The measurement of time-on-task included
two components: overt (observable) on-task behaviors and covert (non-
observable) on-task behaviors. The first component was measured through
a classroom obserJtion instrument. The second component was measured
by, using the stimulated recall technique developed by Bloom (1953). The
major results of the study were as follows: (1) For the first unit in the
sequence, students in the nonmastery classes and in the mastery class who
attained the criterion level in the original amount of 'elapsed time were
similar in the amount of time-on-task required. In contrast. students in the
mastery learning class who were able to attain the, desired criterion only
with the allotment of additional amounts of elapsed time and help required
approximately 66 percent more on-task time than their classmates who
attained mastery in the original amount of elapsed time. In the second unit,
students in the mastery class who needed more time and help to reach the
criterion required approximately 30 percent more time-on-task on the
average than their mastery learning classmates. In the third unit, the group
of students who needed more help to reach the criterion reuttired only five
Percent more time -on task than did their mastery learning classmates.
(2) In the first unit. students who attained the criterion level spent sig-
nificantly less elapsed time than students who needed more time and help.
The magnitude of this difference decreased in the second unit. In the third
unit, no significant differences were observed between the groups. (3) In
the first unit no significant differences were found in the percent of time
actually devoted to learning (time-on-task) between students who reached
the criterion level and students who failed to reach the level. In units 2 and
3. the difference between these two groups of students and the actual
nitude of the difference increased over the two units. 'The results ofmag- the
study imply that the amount of time-on-task required to reach a pre-set
criterion can he altered by an effective review corrective procedure. In
addition, the results show that a relatively heterogeneous group of students
can become homogeneous in the amount of time-on-task they require to
learn a particular task after mastering a series of prerequisite tasks.

Ausi Del. David P. "The Use of Advance Organizers in the Learning and Reten-
tion of Meaningful Verbal Material." Journal o/ Educational Psychology
51 (1960) 267-272.
A study of the degree to which the learning and retention of unfamiliar but
meaningful verbal material can he facilitated by advance introduction of
relevant subsuming conceptsorganizers. The organizers in the present
study were introduced prior to the learning of unfamiliar material. The
sample consisted of 120 seniors. The experiment was performed during
regular class hours. The learning material was a specially prepared 2.500-
word passage dealing with the metallurgical properties of plain carbon
steel. This topic was chosen hecause it was generally unfamiliar to under-
graduates yet sufficiently elementary to he comprehensible and interesting.
In addition. two introductory passages were constructed. The experimental
66 EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION

introductory passage contained background material of a much higher level

of abstraction, generality, and inclusiveness than the latter passage. The
introductory passage was designed to serve as an organizing or anchoring
focus for the subsequent material, and was carefully designed so as not to
contain /specific information that would aid in answering the criterion test.
The control introductory passage, on the other hand, consisted of histor-
ically r.,,levant background, a type of introductory material traditionally
included in textbooks. The control introductory passage contained no con-
ceptual material that could serve as a framework for organizing the ideas
of the learning passage, Subjects were assigned to one of the two treatment
groupsexperimental or control, Both groups studied the steel passage for
35 minutes and took the criterion test three chtvs later. The results demon-
strated that the differences in retention between the experimental and
control groups were significant, Subjects exposed to the experimental
introductory passage scored higher than (heir control group counterparts.

Block, James H., and Tierney, Michael L, "An Exploration of Two Correction
Procedures Used in Mastery Learning Approaches to Instruction." Journal
°I Educational Psychology 66 (1974) : 962-967,
This study explored the impact of the correction procedure on student
learning as a necessiry stage in an instructional strategy. The study also
investigated the effectiveness of two types of corrective procedures that
are known to he part of two versions of the mastery learning strategy. One
is Keller's Personalized System of Instruction and the second is Bloom's
Approach to Learning for Mastery Strategy. In Keller's approach, the
corrective procedures require students to return to the original materials
and methods for the segment upon which they are having learning prob-
lems. while in the Bloom approach students use supplementary instruc-
tional materials and methods to learn problematic subject matter in differ-
ent .kays. The research involved 44 college students who were randomly
assigned to three instructional treatment groups. The first treatment, the
control treatment. was the traditional lecture/discussion approach. Sub-
jects attended 50-minute lectures three times a week during the quarter
and read six required hooks. The second treatment, the redirected study
treatment, used the traditional approach plus a Keller-type correction
procedure. Once every two weeks students in this group received a
diagnostic-progress or formative test on the readings and lectures for the
preceding two-week period. These tests were returned to each student with
an indication of which items the student had answered correctly, the cor-
rect answers to missed items, and a prescription for learning, the unlearned
material. The prescription directed the students to restudy and review the
original reading materials and lecture notes. The third treatment group,
the small study treatment, used the traditional approach plus a Bloom-
type correction procedure. Students in this group were given the same
tests biweekly. but they had their test results returned during cooperative
small-study sessions. In these sessions, each student was asked to select
one of the questions he or she had answered correctly and to explain the
specific answer. The other students were encouraged to ask questions. This
procedure was followed until all of the items on the test had been dis-
 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 67

cussed. Within each treatment group, half of the students were pretested
with the achievement measure and the attitude scale and the remaining
subjects were not pretested. Accordingly, the design for the study was a
2 x 3 factorial design. The results indicate that students who received
correction periodically throughout the course did not learn more than
students who received no correction when learning was manifest in terms
of students' knowledge of the material taught, their final course grade, and
their attitude toward the subject matter. This was true regardless of the
type of correctives used But if learning was measured in terms of the
students' ability to apply the learned material, students who received cor-
rection did learn more than students who received no correction, pro-
vided that correction was accomplished by sending the student to different
instruction (small-group study). The study suggested that application of
the course material could be significantly improved if students used a
correction procedure that exposed them to supplementary instructional
methods and materials rather than those that required them to review and
practice the original materials.

Brophy, Jere F., and Good, Thomas L. "Teachers' Communication of Differ-

ential Expectations for Children's Classroom Performance: Some Behav-
ioral Data.- Journal of Educational Psychology 61 (1970) : 365-374.

This study investigated the processes by which teachers communicate dif-

ferent performance expectations to students. The authors were interested
in exploring teacher expectations, which are assumed to function as self-
fulfilling prophecies, in the administration of a criterion achievement test.
The study was carried out in four first-grade classrooms. The our teachers
involved were asked to rank the students. in their classes in the order of
achievement. These ratings were then used as the measure of teachers'
expectations for students' performance. In each class, six students (three
boys and three girls) high on the teacher's list and six students (three
boys and three girls) low on the teacher's list were selected for observa-
tions. In order to focus on differential treatment of different students, the
study used an observation system addressed to dyadic contacts between
the teacher and the individual student, while other teacher behaviors were
ignored. The type of interactions coded included recitation, reading, and
answers to teachers' questions; in addition, other types of interactions
initiated by the students were observed. One major feature that was coded
consistently was whether the interaction was initiated by the teacher or by
the student. Coders also noted the quality of the students' responses and
the evaluative nature of feedback given by the teachers. In addition to the
coding of dyadic interactions, Students' hand raising was tallied as a
measure of their tendency to seek response opportunities. The observa-
tions were made on four separate days in each of the four classes, and
extended for an entire morning or an entire afternoon. The results were
as follows: (1) Students for whom the teacher held high expectations
raised their hands more frequently and initiated more procedural and
work-related interactions than did students for whom the teacher held low
expectations. (2) There was a tendency for the teachers to initiate more
contacts with the students for whom they held low expectations than with
68 EFFEcTIVE I- I l'ioN

the students for whom they held high expectations, However, these were
crick isms rather than work-related contacts. Students for whom the
teacher held high expectations produced more correct answers in the read-
ine groups and achieved higher average scores on the end-of-year standard
test than did students for whom the teacher held low expectations. (4) The
teachers were more persistent in elicitine responses from the highs by
Riving them more than one opportunity to respond. The teachers failed to
give feedback only 3.3 percent of the time when reacting to highs, com-
pared to 14.7 percent of the time when re.ieting to lows, (S) Teachers had
more disapproval contact~ with boys than girls. The findings of the study
indicated that teachers did, in fact, communicate different performance
ectations to different children through their classroom behiivior, and
the nature of this different treatment encouraged students to begin to re-
spond in ways that could confirm teacher expectancies.

DeYung. Alan John. "Classroom Climate and Class Success: A Class Study at
the University Level." The Journal of Educational ReAearch 70 (1977):
252-257.

This study hypothesized that ereater congruence between the real and
ideal climate of a classroom would be reflected in increased student
appreciation and catistactIon for the course and its content. In contrast to
more traditional student evaluation of classrooms, which looked at teacher
quality, this study chose to assess classroom climate through the entire
social intellectual atmosphere. A modified version of the Classroom
Environment Scale, developed by Moos and Trickett, was used to assess
the real classroom climate as perceived by students. It contained 90 true-
false items on nine subscales: involvement, affiliation, teacher-support,
task orientation. competition, order and organization, rule clarity, teacher
control, and innovation. In addition, a short version for rapid assessment
of ideal and expected climate was used. The course under consideration
for this study was a required two-tnOt sociology-social psychology section
for junior and senior education majors. The study entailed two phases.
Initially, the real and ideal versions of the classroom environment scales
were given to the students in Class A approximately halfway through one
academic quarter. Subsequently, the discrepancies between real and ideal
scores were identified. This information was used to restructure course
content and operation for the subsequent class in social psychology and
education (Class B). Since attendance in the course was not mandatory
for either class, a careful attendance record was kept for both quarters.
In addition, students reported data on overall course appreciation, class
content, class functioning, and teacher quality. The results were as fol.
lows: (I) A discrepancy between ideal and real-perceived climate was
established in Class A. For example, while students wanted appreciable
amounts of involvement and affiliation, they actually perceived almost
none of these features in the class. The only areas of congruence were
competition, order and organization, and teacher control. (2) The social
climate desired by Class B (after changes in course content and operation
were carried out) was almost identical to that desired by Class A. How-
ever, differences were established between the two classes h the two real
 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 69

climate profiles. Real subscales scores for Class B on such dimensions as

involvement, affiliation, support and rule clarity, which the investigator
tried to change, were all closer to the ideal climate than were the real
scores in Class A. (3) Attendance for Class A was smaller than attendance
for Class B. Also, students in Class B felt that their class was better Organ-
ized. more interesting, and that the discussions were of a higher intellectual
quality. The research suggests that it is quite possible to change social
climate and that a more ideal climate was linked to students' satisfaction
and motivation to attend class.

Duchastel, Philippe C., and Brown, Robby R. "Incidental and Relevant Learn-
ing with Instructional Objectives." Journal of Educational Psychology 66
(1974): 481-485.

This research examined the role of students' knowledge of learning objec-

tives. The authors hypothesized that through knowledge of objectives stu-
dents can decide which material to concentrate on and which to pay less
attention to. A sample of 58 college students volunteered to participate in
the study. The course was organized around a set 'of 24 objectives de-
veloped from an examination of the instructional reading passage. All
objectives were very specific and stated what the student would be ex-
pected to do once he or she finished studying the text. The post-test was
developed so as to reflect directly the instructional Objectives. Subjects were
randomly assigned to two treatment groups. The first group received half
of the objectives that had been randomly selected from the full list. The
second group received no objectives and were instructed to learn every-
!fling in the text. The subjects had a maximum of 30 minutes in which to
study the passage. During the learning task, the subjects were permitted
o review any section of the text at their discretion. Each subject decided
when he or she was satisfied, wrote down the exact time, and received the
post-test. Post-test directions indicated to the subjects that they should try
to answer all iiems. The results were as follows: (1) The group receiving
half of the objectives performed better than the group receiving none of
the objectives on the subtest that was referenced to the partial list of objec-
tives received by the group. The group receiving half of the objectives
performed less well than the group receiving none of the objectives on the
subtest that was referenced to the set of objectives not received by the
group. This indicates that relevant learning was enhanced by the avail-
ability of objectives, whereas incidental learning was depressed by the
availability of objectives. (2) No difference in the amount of time each
student spent studying the text was established between the group receiv-
ing half of the objectives and the group receiving none of the objectives.
This research supports the hypothesis that knowledge of very specific
objectives facilitates learning by focusing the learning effort on relevant
material and simultaneously detracting attention from incidental material.
The results, however, are directly generalizable only to the knowledge
category of learning.
70 EFECTIVE INs-ra HON

Field, Ronald L.. and Okey, James R. "The Effects of Formative Evaluation
and Remediation on Mastery of Intellectual Skills." The Journal of Edu-
cational Research 75 (1975): 253-255.
The.major purpose of this study was to examine the relative effectiveness
of two remediation (corrective) procedures: learning or relearning pre-
requisite skills and repeated practice of the learned task. The subjects
involved in the study were 90 eighth-grade general science students in four
different ciasses taught by one instructor. Random assignment of the sub-
jects produced three treatment groups of 30 subjects each. All classroom
activities during the study were directed by the regular classroom teacher.
During the experiment, each student studied a block of self-instructional
material on identifying variables, constructing graphs, and interpreting
graphs. The instructional materials were designed to teach each of the
tasks in a learning, hierarchy, consisting of a terminal task and 13 subordi-
nate skills. All students were presented a tape-slide program on construct-
ing a table of data. At the end of the presentation the students took a
diagnostic test covering the objectives of the instruction. The results of
the diagnostic test were used to indicate which skills each subject had not
acquired from the main-line instruction. Subjects in Group 1 who were
no successful in a particular test item received additional instruction on
objectives prerequisite to those in the main-line instruction. Group 2 sub-
jects received additional practice items similar to those in main-line in-
struction. Subjects in Group 3 received no additional instruction. All
remedial activities used paper-and-pencil materials on which the subjects
responded to a problem and received immediate feedback. This instruction-
diagnostic test remedial activity sequence was repeated three times during
the study and occupied a total of six class periods. Following The third
remedial period, all subjects were tested on the criterion measure which
consisted of 13 items covering the terminal task and 12 of the subordinate
skills. The results of the study demonstrate a significant difference in
scores attained by students who received remediation compared with
scores attained by students who received no remediation. A significant
difference in achievement was found between the two remediation groups.
The study demonstrates that an alternative form of instruction, such as
additional instruction on prerequisite skills, produces a more significant
improvement in achievement than does using additional practice items as
remediation. These results imply that remediating learning errors is more
effective through practice and mastery of the necessary prerequisite skills
for a particular task.

Frase. Lawrence T. "Effect of Question Location, Pacing, and Mode Upon

Retention of Prose Material." Journal of Educational Psychology 59
(1968): 244-249.
The research explored the effect of question location, question pacing,
location of relevant content, and question mode on the retention of relevant
and incidental learning outcomes. Subjects were 128 introductory psychol-
ogy students. A 2000-word passage, which was divided into 20 paragraphs
 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 71

of 10 lines each, served as the stimulus material. Each paragraph in-

cluded two multiple-choice items, one relating to the first half of the para-
graph and one relating to the second_ Fcr halt the subjects, the questions
relating to the first part of the paragraph were placed before or after the
paragraph. For the remaining subjects, the questions related to the second
part of the paragraphs and were also placed before or after the para-
graphs. The questions the subjects saw while reading the material were
called relevant questions. The other half of the questions were called inci-
dental. The criterion retention test consisted of both relevant and inciden-
tal items. The subjects were randomly assigned experimental materials
and instructed to read each page, not to review or look back at any page
after reading it, and to answer the questions when they were encountered.
When they completed the reading task, the subjects received the final test.
This study employed a design in which factors were (a) question location
before or after the paragraph; (b) question pacingafter every 10, 20,
10, or 50 sentences (one question after each 10 sentences, two questions
after 20 sentences): (0-- content locationquestion-relevant material lo-
cated in the first or second part of each paragraph; and (d) question mode
multiple-choice or constructed response. The results were: (1) Ques-
!tons facilitated retention more when they were placed after the prose
passage. (2) Retention of the relevant information was significantly higher
than retention of the incidental information. (3) The advantage of ques-
tions that were placed after the paragraph increased as the number and
frequency of the questions increased. Conversely, the disadvantage of
placing questions in front of the paragraphs was strongest when the ques-
tions occurred most frequently. (4) Regardless of pacing or location of
questions, higher incidental retention was achieved if the incidental ma-
terial followed the relevant material. (5) No differences between multiple-
choice and constructed response items were established.

Glynn, Shawn M.. and DiVesta, Francis J. "Outline and Hierarchical Organi-
zation as Aids for Study and Retrieval." Journal of Educational Psychol-
ogy 69 (1977): 89-95.

This study examined the effects of 'variations in the logical sequencing of

paragraphs in a text. These effects were studied in terms of the recall of
specific and general facts and of reconstructions of material learned. The
subjects were 120 undergraduate students who were awarded points to-
ward their course grades for participating. The text material was generated
from 15 hierarchically structured topics. Two versions of the text were
employed to manipulate sequence. In one, a text was _sequenced logically
by ordering the 15 paragraphs to reflect the hierarchy of the topic strue
ture. In the other variation, the sequence was scrambled by random
ordering of the independent paragraphs within the passage. Thus, the
paragraphs of the two texts were identical, but the degree to which the
topics followed a logical progression was varied. The structural outline
was used as an advance structural outline and as a retrieval structural
outline. These enabled the subjects to identify the topics, their sequence,
72 LI I FRL C I ION

and their _ierarchical relationships. The learning task was administered to

15 groups. each comprised of eight subjects. Each student in a group was
r,indonilv assigned to one at the exi1eriment,i1 conditions. Ihe e:xperimen-
/al session lasted trom mintitcs, at the end.ot which each student
was tested on his or her recall of the le,irned m.tlertal the results were -as
tollows: (I ) -the provision of an advanced structural outline led to a
greater proportion of specific facts being recalled by the subjects than
w hen this aid was not provided. Also, the proportion of specific reproduc-
tive facts recalled by the subjects was sign tic intly greater than the pro-
portion of the general reproductive facts in both the presence and the
absence of an advanced structural outline. (2) The presence of a retrieval
structural outline significantly affected recall when paragraphs were
scrambled, but did not significantly affect recall when paragraphs were
sequenced logically. In addition, performance on productive recall under
the logieal p,ir,igraph sequence condition `A as higher than performance
tinder the scrambled paragraph sequence condition in the absence of the
retrieval structural outline.

Good. Tf,ornas L., and Beckerman. Merrill M, Time on Task: A Naturalistic

Stud: in Sixth -Grade Classrooms." The Elementary School Journal 78
(197:): 193-201.
The study investigated whether student involvement was different for high,
middle, and low achievers. It also explored wnether certain types of class-
room activities were associated with higher or lower levels of student
involvement. Two different types of schools wore selected, one in which
students represented a wide range of socioeconomic status, and one in
which students came from working-class or lower middle-class homes. In
both schools, all sixth-grade classrooms were included in the study, three
classrooms in each school. Classroom instruction in both schools was
primarily self-contained. Six coders collected 14 hours of observational
data in each class. Four rmijor types of information were collected re-
garding: (a) the instructional setting (wh%:.2 class or small group, with
or without teacher supervision); (h) the type of activity students were
engaged in (writing, waiting for the teacher, walking, talking); (c) the
subject matter under study (mathematics, reading, art, science); and (d)
the level of task involvement (definitely involved, definitely not involved,
misbehavior, indeterminate). The coders looked at each student in each
class in turn, determined the student setting, activity, and level of atten-
tion. At the end of the study, teachers were asked to assign each student
to one of three achievement groups (high, middle, low) on the basis of
overall achievement. The authors report a high level of observation reli-
ability (85 percent or better), The major findings were: (1) High
achievers spend more time on t:-if,k (are more involved) than low achievers.
(The gap between high achievers and low achievers becomes greater in
subject, areas that are trialitiomilly emphasized-76 percent of high
achieving students vs. 64 percent of low achieving students). (2) Student
involvement seems to vary with the subject being taught. Students were
obseiJed to be more involved during mathematics and spelling. In addi-
 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 73

tion, the instructional setting seems to have an important influence on

student involvement. Students' involvement is highest when they are
studying in small groups (86 percent of the students were definitely in-
volved) or in a large group with teacher supervision (80 percent of the
students were definitely involved). In contrast, student involvement drops
during individual activities. In a large classroom setting where the teacher
typically lectures and students listen, only 60 percent of the students were
definitely involved.

Greabell, Leon C. "The Effect of Stimuli Input on the Acquisition of In oduc-

tory Geometric Concepts by Elementary School Children.- School Science
and Mathematics LXVIII (1978): 320-326.

The study was designed to determine if planned exposure to a greater

number of stimuli in the process of learning will affect student achieve-
ment in an introductory course in geometry. In this study there were
several references made to increase stimuli. Stimuli were defined by nine
categories (based on the Functional Analysis of Classroom Tasks); each
represented a sensory component and a cognitional component. Three
types of sensory subcomponents were usedvisual, auditory, and tactile.
The cognitional component also had three subcomponentsconcrete,
representative, and abstract. The nine kinds of stimuli reflect, therefore,
each pair of the two sets of subcomponents. For example, visual and
concrete stimuli emphasize viewing an object around which the learning
is centered. Auditory and concrete reflect the learning of the real object.
Tactile makes use of physical feeling of a representation of an object,
thing, or idea around which the learning is centered. Two groups werz
defined for the purpose of the studya low stimuli group (LSG) and a
high stimuli group (HSG). For the LSG (N 51) a series of nine lessons
in geometry was designed using a widely-used children's mathematics text
as a basis for planning. The lessons contained no additional forms of
stimuli other than those recommended by the text, that is, mainly visual-
abstract and abstract-abstract. For the HSG (N 57) the same lesson
plans were used, but additional stimuli were systematically incorporated
into each lesson as defined by- the nine categories. Auditor, .-oncrete and
tactile-abstract were not referenced even once in the lessons of the HSG.
The students (N 108) selected for the study represent a random school
population of seven-, eight-, and nine-year-olds. No student had formal
instruction in geometry before the experiment. The students were ran-
domly assigned to self-contained classrooms in two elementary schools and
studied in 11 groups, five of which were LSG and six HSCi. Over a two-
week period each group was given approximately 45 minutes of instruc-
tion per day on geometry; on the tenth day each group was given the
post-test. The results of the study indicated that students in the HSG
scored t.. her than students in the LSG. Systematically planning and in-
creasing stimuli in geometry did show an effect on achievement.
74 EFFECTIVE tNsrRUtrloN

Hops, Hyman. and Cobb. Joseph A. -Initial Investigations into Academic Sur-
vivalSkill Training, Direct Instruction, and First-Grade Achievement."
Journal of Educational Psvt holoqv 66 (1974): c48-553.

This study explored the relative effects of training in academic survival

skills vs. direct instruction with the use of an individualized curriculum on
reading achievement. Survival skills are defined as specific classroom be-
haviors (for example, attentiveness to a teacher, participation in classroom
discussion) that are not academic responses per se but are the necessary
basis for academic behaviors. The study was conducted in four first-grade
classrooms, which were randomly assigned to three experimental condi-
tions: one class served as control; another class received direct individual-
ized instruction (DM and two classes received group survival skill train-
ing (GSS) . Student behaviors were observed during all reading periods
for five consecutive days. Using an interactive coding system developed
by the authors, the Observers recorded the behavior of each student for a
minimum of two consecutive eight-second intervals before going on to the
next student. After all students had been coded once, the process was
repeated. Thus, the behavior of each student was sampled about the same
number of times during each session. Four skills were observed: attending,
working, volunteering, and looking around. To compute a student's sur-
vival-skill level, the frequency of looking around was subtracted from the
summed frequencies of attending, volunteering, and working. This figure
was divided by the total frequency of all behaviors and represented the
pro: -lion of academic survival-skill behaviors for each student. The
experimental manipulation occurred in the regular classroom setting and
lasted for 20 school days. The primary focus was to alter teacher behav-
iors in order to enhance favorable academie and survival behaviors in the
students. In the group survival .,kill program (GSS teachers were trained
.

to use modeling, daily feedback, cueing, and so on In particular, teachers

were trained in how to pair group-nonsocial reinforcement with individual
and group-social reinforcement, vicarious reinforcement, shaping pro-
cedures, close monitoring, and the withdrawal of nonsocial reinforcement
by gradually increasing the criterion for such reinforcement. The approach
used in the direct instruction (DI) of reading was based on the assump-
tion that reading can be taught in a programmatic fashion by individualiz-
ing the curriculum. The reading tests r ere analyzed into a hierarchy of
subskills. The teacher had to identify the entering behaviors or particular
subskill levels of each student, who was then taught the next task in the
hierarchy. Each student wa tested to determine whether he or she had
mastered a subskill before proceeding to the next. The teacher in the con-
trol class was provided with a graduate student who acted as a teacher
aide during the study. The student and the teacher were given no specific
instructions. Two achievement tests were used The Gates MacGinitie
Primary A and the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Readiness tests. These were
administered both prior to and six weeks after the termination of the
formal intervention procedures. Gain scores for both survival skills and
mean achievement Were used as the dependent variables of the study. The
major findings of the study. follow: (1) Classrooms that received the
 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 75

group survival-skill training made greater gain in survival-skill behaviors

than those tl-hit did not receive the training. (2) Students %vho received
direct pr 1grammati instruction readine increased significantly their
achievement level but not their survival skill behavior. (3) Students in
the survival-skill training program demonstrated greater gains in achieve-
ment and survival skills than did students of the control cla (4) Scores
in reading achievement were increased both by direct instruction in read-
ing and also by survival-skill training. The study suggests that even with
an effective curriculum, a teacher may need help in classroom manage-
ment for increasing students' survival-skill behaviors such as attentiveness,
work, and volunteered participation in discussions.

Howe, M. J. A., and Singer, Linda. -Presentatk Variables and Students' Ac-
tivities in Meaningful Learning." British Journal of Educational Psychology
45 (1975) : 52 4if. 1

Two experiments were conducted to measure what effect different pro-

cedures students use to learn a new prose passage have on subsequent
recall. In the first experiment, three procedures were investigated: reading
a descriptive prose passage, copying the passage, and summarizing (taking
notes) while reading. These experimental conditions were designed to test
the efficacy of active involvement in learning. The copying condition was
designed to involve the student in some of the activities involved in sum-
marizing, but summarizing involves the student in active processing and
coding behaviors. The S6 subjects in the first experiment were first-year
undergraduate students who attended two successive weekly sessions. In
the first session. each subject received experimental instructions together
with the prose passage. The three experimental groups were given different
instructions. Group One was told to spend 10 minutes reading the text and
rereading it if time allowed. Group Two was told to use the same time
copying the passage. as far as possible, word by word. Subjects in Group
Three were told to make a summary of each paragraph in the prose
passage. All students were warned that they might subsequently be asked
questions about the subject matter. After 10 minutes, the test for retention
r 'he passage content was administered. Contrary to expectations, the
peirmance of the students who simply read the passage was superior on
both the immediate test and the long-term test, although on the long-term
test the difference between the reading and summarizing groups was not
significant. The authors explained that students in the reading group could
perform better because their learning conditions allowed maximum free-
dom to use whatever strategies, procedures, and habits the students found
valuable in coping with a new task. Since the findings differed markedly
from another study by the same authors, in which subjects did not read
the passage but listened to it, a second experiment was carried out in
which both presentation conditions and subjects' activities were manipu-
lated. The purpose was, then, to ascertain how the different combinations
of these two variables influence performance. In experiment two, some
subjects read the passage, some listened to it at dictation speed, and others
76 Eit-FEcriVE iNist Kix Et

listened to repeated auditory presentation at a normal speaking

Within each of these three groups, some students were required to record
the hy eor,irN it in ,ritin_i_. and others made no overt revonse.
Die second experiment included 96 undergraduate students who were
allocated at random to the different experimental conditions. [he results
revealed that with written presentation, subjects who simply read the
passage performed better than those who were also required to record the
information by copying it. With auditory presentation at dictation speed,
no differences existed between those who recorded the passage and those
who simply read it. Among those who listened to the passage at normal
speed, students who merely listened obtained subsequent recall scores
twice as high as students who had to record the information. The findings
show, therefore, that students who were allowed to distribute their atten-
tion as they wanted performed better by not having to submit to the
constraints necessitated by having to record the information. Also when
subjects were already constrained in the manner in which they directed
their attention, the requirement to record the passage did not impose any
further constraint.

Hughes. David D. "An Experimental Investigation of the Effects of Pupil Re-

sponding and Teacher Reacting on Pupil Achievement. Experiment Ill:
Teacher Reaction.- Atnericorz Educational Research Journal 1 (1973):
21-37.

This study was part of a series of experimental studies of teacher effective-

ness in the classroom. In each study the researcher gave classes lessons
that had been planned in detail and memorized, thus minimizing extran-
eous teacher behavior variables. All the information to be provided to
students, its sequence, the wording of teachers' reactions to student re-
sponses, and so forth, were predetermined. The specific purpose of the
experiment was to study the effect of teacher reactions to students' overt
responses on student achivement. Subjects were Form II students
(roughly equivalent to U.S. seventh grade) from 13 classrooms in five
intermediate schools. The experimental lessons dealt with three exotic
game animals of New Zealand that are not part of the regular science
program. In order to study the effects of positive teacher reactions on
pupil achievement, two treatment groups were usedreacting and non-
reacting. The students in the reacting group received frequent praise for
giving correct answers ("Very good," followed by the correct answer).
Th-y received support for giving incorrect answers (-Not a bad effort,
but ...." followed by the correct answer); and they were urged or mildly
reproved when the situation warranted (-Haven't you any idea?-). The
students in the nonreacting group generally received little more than a
statement of the correct answer. The results of the study revealed that
the two treatment groups differed significantly on their mean residual
achievement score, indicating a higher residual score for the reacting
group compared to the nonreacting group. Moreover, teachers' reactions
affected students' scores on both the post-test items relevant to the ques-
tions they responded to and the post-test items not relevant to the dues-
 ANNOTATED BiBEIOGRAPKY 77

tions. The findings indicate that this positive/mildly negative teacher

reaction to student responses, where appropriate, facilitates student achieve-
ment mere than minimal teacher

Johnson, David; Johnson, Roger T.: Johnson. Jeanette; and Anderson, Douglas.
"Effects of Cooperative Versus Individualized Instruction on Students'
Prosocial Behavior, Attitudes Toward Learning, and Achievement" Jour-
nal of Educational Psychology 68 (1976): 446-452.
This study explored the relative effects of cooperative and individualistic
goal structures on three types of learning outcomes: student prosocial
behavior (altruism and the ability to take the affective perspective of
others), attitudes toward learning, and achievement. The study hypo-
thesized that the way teachers structure classroom learning determines the
way students interact with each other and with the teacher; this in turn,
affects the cognitive and affective outcomes of instruction. The authors
conceptualized cooperative and individualized goal structures. Under a
cooperative goal structure, when one student achieves his or her goal, all
students achieve their goals. Under an individualized goal structure, the
goal achievement of one student is unrelated to the goal achievement of
other students. These two ways of structuring learning lead to different
interaction patterns and are expected to promote different learning out-
comes. The subjects of the study, fifth-graders, learned language arts for
a 17-day period. Students were randomly assigned to one of the two treat-
gent groups, the individualized condition or the cooperative condition.
Cooperation was operationally defined as instructing students to study
together as a group, completing one assii- lent sheet per group, seeking
help from each other, and individually re,eiving teacher praise. During
the study, students participated in no other cooperative academic learning
experiences. Also, daily observations were made to test and verify that
student behavior was in fact appropriate to the assigned condition. The
observation data indicated that students did in fact study in their assigned
condition. At the end of the study, students were given the criteria meas-
ures. The results indicated that cooperative interaction with peers promotes
altruistic behavior of students compared with studying individually. The
results of the study also provide some evidence indicating that cooperative
learning experiences facilitate intrinsic motivation to learn, while individ-
ualized learning experiences may facilitate extrinsic motivation to learn.
The findings also support the contention that cooperation is positively
correlated with feelings of acceptance and support by teachers and peers,
as well as with liking for peers. Finally, the results of this study demon-
strated that higher daily achievement results from cooperative learning,
but no differences exist between cooperative and individualized conditions
on a review test given individually. Yet, when the review test was taken
cooperatively by the students in the cooperative condition and individually
by the students on the individualized condition, the cooperative group did
better.
75 t_ t 1%, Y Haiti

Kulhay. Raymond W : Yekoyieb. Frank R.: and D r, James W. "Feedback

and Response Confidence.- loNrnal ut Lducatiomil /-,._vci,o(o.ev h4 (1976):

This study explored the corrective nature of feedback in relation to stu-

dents' confidence in their beh.ivior. The subjects were hl undergraduate
volunteers. They were randomly assigned to each feedback condition
present and absent. The experimental test was a modified version of a
30-frame program, -The Structure and Function of the Human Eve,-
which vv:is previously used in snidies, The frames averaged 5 words in
length, and e:ich ft:mie included a five-item multiple-choice question re-
lated to its content. The scale on which the subjects rated their confidence
in the correctness of an answer was located at the bottom of the page
follow ing the question. The scale contained five points ranging from 1

tow confidence) to 5 (sure of answer), The post-test consisted of the

same questions seen in the program. Subjects in the feedback condition
were given a Trainer-Tester Response Card, which was keyed to the cor-
rect responses in the program. Subjects made their program responses by
erasing the circle they felt corresponded to the correct frame response.
When the circle was erkised. the s ihjccts saw either a T it their choice was
correct or another letter if the resoonse was incorrect. Subjects partici-
pated in small groups. In the two conditions, subjects were told to read
each frame carefully, answer the question, rate their confidence on the
correctness of the selected response, and record their frame time. Students
in the feedback condition were ids-) given instructions on how to use the
Trainer- Tester Response Card and were told to erase alternative selections
for each item until they loc:acit the correct choice identified by T. They
were also asked to record the total time they spent on the feedback pro-
cedure. The immediate post-test was administered following the program
with no time limit on completing the test. One week later, the delayed test
was administered. The results were as follows. (1) Students who received
feedback had superior performance compared to students who received no
feedback. However, this success cannot he attributed to either longer study
times nor to less frequent errors during learning. (2) Students who re-
ceived feedback were more likely to remember their correct program
responses on a later test than were students who received no feedback.
(3) For high-confidence correct answers, feedback helped the students
remember that thy' response was correct, at least on an immediate post-
test. Also when subjects received feedback following a high-confidence
error, they showed a marked tendency to be able to correct themselves on
an immAiate test and to a lesser degree on a delayed measure. (4) Error
responses required significantly more time for the subjects to complete the
feedback proct ;ure. Also at the higher levels of confidence ratings (4 a ad
5), feedback time was longer for errors and shorter for correct answers.
This study favors the contention that the effects of feedback are largely
determined by the students' perception of their original response. Feed-
back, according to these results, is most successful.when it follows a re-
sponse in which the subject has high confidence. When confidence is high
in an error response, feedback acts as a strong corrective device. Alter-
 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 79

nately, when the response is high-confidence and correct, seeing feedback

increased the probability of repeating the correct answer.

Lahademe, Henriette, M. -Attitudinal and Intellectual Correlates of Attention:

A Study of Four Classrooms.- Journal of Educational hychology 59
i9n8) 320-324.
.

This study examined whether children's attentiveness in class is related to

their attitudes toward school and the teacher on the one hand, and to
achievement and ability on the other. The subjects were 125 students (62
boys and 63 girls) enrolled in four sixth-grade classrooms in a pre-
dominantly white, working-class suburb. Their classroom behavior was
observed over a three-month period, in 37 hours of observation with
approximately nine hours spent in each of the four classrooms. Question-
naires were administered to the students and background data, such as IQ
and achievement test scores, were obtained from school records. The
observational scheme was a modified version of the Jackson-Hudgins
observation schedule. The observer recorded the state of each student's
attention, according to four classifications: (1) "+- if the student was
attentiveattending to the subject and activity designated by the teacher,
such as reading or writing: (2) if the student was clearly inattentive
not attending to the area of focus or the prescribed activity: (3) "1" if
the observer was uncertain whether or not the student was attentive; (4)
"0" if the student's attention was not observable. Interobserver reliability
ranged from 83 percent to 100 percent in trial observations. The student's
attitudes toward four aspects of school lifethe curriculum, teacher,
peers, and the schoolwere measured by a 47-item multiple-choice run-
tionnaire Students' attitudes toward their teacher and schoolwork were
measured by a 37-item questionnaire. The achievement and ability tests
were derived from the Scott-Foresman Basic R2ading Test, the Stanford
Achievement Test, and the Kuhlmann-Anderson Intelligence Test. The
main findings follow. ( I ) The correlations between attention and meas-
ures of achievement were significant. They ranged between .53 for in-
attentive students to +.51 for attentive students. The student who paid
attention gained the most from the instruction, while the student who was
inattentive was not apt to achieve academically. (2) The partical correla-
tion coefficient between achievement and attention, with IQ held constant,
ranad from .26 to .31 and seemed to depend on the type of achievement
test. (3) For neither boys nor girls were feelings toward the school and
the teacher related to their attention of the dominant class activity. (4)
Low correlations were found between students' attitudes and their achieve-
ment test scores and IQ. The author discusses possible explanations for
the lack of a relationship between the way students felt about school and
their ,mentiveness in class, One possible explanation is that the constrains
imposed on students to he attentive were so strong that attitudes could
not influence behavior. The author also discusses possible explanations for
the relatively strong relationship between intelligence measures and stu-
dent attentiveness. A usual classroom situation in which the teacher directs
the curriculum to the class average may strengthen the relationship be-
80 Et'[ [ION

tween intelligence and n ion. This implies, according to the author,

that a curvilinear rathei a linear relation may -en attention
and level of instruction.

sel, Wes, and Mood, Darlene W. "Teacher Verbal Behavior and Teacher
and Pupil Thinking in Elementary School." The Journal of Educcuional
Research 66 (1972): 99-102.
This study explored the relationships between modes teacher verbal
influence and the sophistication of pupil thinking. I ,o explored the
relationships between the levels of teacher and pup :ink: in the class-
room, The more specific purpose of the study w. .o determine if the
degree of abstraction observed in the verbal behavior of children was
related to the level of thinking observed in the teacher's verbal behavior
or to the teacher's mode of behavior. A sample of 15 female second-grade
teachers participated in the experiment. The 399 students in the 15 class-
rooms composed the student sample, which included 214 boys and 185
girls. Each teacher was observed for approximately 12 hours. In order to
provide an adequate sampling of all interactions in the various subject
matter areas, observations were divided between mornings and afternoons.
Observations were recorded every 3 seconds, showing both the category
of interaction and, when appropriate, the level of thinking inherent in
either the pupil's or the teacher's verbalization. The basic data collection
instrument was Flanders' 10-category system of classroom interaction
analysis, which designates seven categories of teacher talk, two of pupil
talk, and one of silence. A system of levels of thinking was added to the
following four categories of the Flanders' system: teacher lectures, teacher
questions, pupil responds, and pupil initiates. This system inc; ides three
hierarchical levels: Level A represents statements or questions dealing
with memory, previously learned material, or simple description; Level B
includes statements or questions that differentiate between phenon.-..na,
grouping activities, and simple explanations; and Level C represents state-
ments or questions that require inference, derivation by reasoning, con-
cluding from evidence, telling why, and constructing cause and effect
statements. The results reveal that teachers and pupils function largely at
the lower levels of thinking. For example, teacher questions took up 11.2
percent of the total interaction, and of that, 83 percent were at the lowest
level of thinking. Similar high proportions of pupil talk were at the lowest
level of thinking. Almost all of the higher level statements and questions
by teachers were taken directly from various teacher guides; virtually no
use of the higher mental functions was observed during teacher-initiated
class discussions. The study demonstrates a relationship between the level
of thinking inherent in the teacher's verbal behavior and that of his or her
students. When teachers function at higher levels of thinking, their stu-
dents also tend to function at those levels.
 ANNOTATED DIBLioGRAPHY 81

Page, Ellis B. "Teacher Comments and Student Performance: A Seventy-four

Classroom Experiment in Nchool .Motivation," Journal vi Educational
Psveholoqy 49 (1958) : 173;1 Sl.
The study investigated two questions: Do teacher comments cause a sig-
nificant improvement in student perfon Awe? If comments have an effect,
which comments have more than others, and what are the conditions con-
dome to such effect'? Seventy-four teachers, randomly selected from
among secondary teachers of three districts, participated, and each teacher
randomly chose one of his or her classes for study_ . The classes represented
all secondary grades (7 through 12), most of the subject-matter areas,
and consisted of 7,139 students. The teachers first administered an objec-
tive test that would ordinarily come next in the course ot study. The tests
were marked in the usual way with a numerical score and tt letter grade of
A. B. (2, D. or F. Then the teachers randomly assigned each paper to one
ot three groups: no comment, tree comment, or specified comment. No-
comment students received nothing else. Free-comment students received
hatever comment the teacher wanted to make. Specified-comment stu-
dent, all received comments designated in advance for each letter grade:
A. -.Excellent! Keep it up"; B, "Good work: keep at it"; C. "Perhaps try
to do still better?", D, "Let's bring this up"; and F, "Let's raise this grade."
The test papers were then returned to the students. The effects of the
cog ,meths were judged by the scores the students received on the next
test. [he main findings were as follows. (1) Free-comment students
achieved higher scores than specified-comment students, and specified-
comment students did better than no-comment students. All differences
were significant except those ',:.(1,veen free-comment and specified-com-
ment students. (2) When comment effect was compared among 12 differ-
ent schools. no significant differences were revealed (3) There was an
indication that comment effects were similar among junior high and senior
high students. (4) Although teachers believed their better students were
much more responsive to teacher comments than were poorer students, the
experiment did not support this belief.

Reynolds. James F-f., imd Glaser, Robert. "Effects of Repet n and Spaced
Upon Retention of a Complex Learning Task.' z/ of Educa-
'lanai Psychology LV (1964): 297-308.
This research evaluated the effect of repetition and spaced review on re-
tention of a complex and meaningful learning ta in two studies. In these
studies an attempt W:ts made to explore these effects on c.mditions ap-
proximating classroom learning. The researchers used programmed in-
struction built of 1,280 frames covering ten topics in biology. Within this
program, the sixth topica 115-frame sequencey' as selected for ex-
perimental variations. Using the original 115-framc sequence as a standard,
two new sequences were written that taught the same material but differed
from the original form in the frequency the technical terms were repeated,
One contained 50 percent less repetitions and one contained 50 percent
more repetitions, as compared to the original form. By inserting any one
 _I L Iti',141 FION

:hrce experimental seq',:enccs into the larger program at Topic 6,

the amount of repetition of the experimental material was varied while the
presentation of prior and subsequent learning material was kept constant.
to provide for space review, two short sections were written. They were
inserted after Topic 7 ,n(1 T;)pie 8. According to the design, one review
condition contained the same number of repetitions of the terms as the
standard form. but spaced them over several topics rather than presenting
them intact, second review condition had 50 percent more repetitions
than the stLinclird form and was equivalent in number of repetitions to
the experimental condition. but they were also distributed over topics
rather than massed. A total of 75 junior-high school students and 58
eighth-graders participated in the first and the second experiments, respect-
lively. Criteria measures of recall and recognition of the terms were used
to assess retention, The results were as follows. (I) Repetition differences
h,itl only limited effect on retention of programmed materials, and even
this limited effect disappeared over a relatively short period of time (2)
Spacm14 of review sequences had a facilitating effect on- retention of ma-
terial learned in a programmed sequence.

Rover, James and Cable. Glenn W. "Illustrations, Analogies and Facilita-

tive Transfer in Prose Learning.- Journal o/ Educational Psychology 68
1976 20.5-209.

The present research explored the effectiveness of using illustrations and .

physical analogies on students' ability to transfer learned material. Rased

on assumptions about knowledge structures, the researchers tested their
hypothesis, which indicated that the following two conditions in the learn-
ing process of a two-passage sequence facilitates positive transfer: (1) the
initial passage to which the subjects are exposed establishes a knowledge
bridge between known information and new information contained in the
next passage: and (2) the next (target) passage is difficult to comprehend.
Four versions of the first passage were constructed differently and could
he characterized as abstract with illustrations, abstract with analogies, con-
crete, and imembelliShed abstract. An unrelated passage was also included
to serve as a control. The first four passages were concerned with heat
flow or electrical conductivity, while the control passage was concerned
with an unrelated topic. The concrete version contained as many concrete
referents as possible. The abstract version was largely devoid of concrete
referents and contained neither physical analogies nor illustrations. The
abstract-with-analogies version was very similar in style to the regular
abstract passage, but differed in content since it contained the physical
analogies which added real-world phenomena. The abstract-with-illustra-
tions passage was similar in content to the abstract passage, except that it
was accompanied by drawings. Illustrations were used with the abstract
rather than with thes_concrete passage since the authors believed that illus-
trations are effective only in situations where the text to be learned is diffi-
cult to comprehend. Five groups (N = 80) received five different initial
passages. All the groups received 'an abstract passage, which was con-
erned with a topic different from the initial passage, as the second pas-
.'
 9113I I 1(111- S3

sage, The predictio,, ..as that the concrete group, the abstract-with-
analogies group. and the abstract- with illustrations group would recall
significantly more from the second p,r,sage than would the control and
abstract groups. Also, it was fo.pothesized that the former three groups
would not differ from each other in recall. The resulls of the study pro-
vided substantial support for the prediAions. It is possible to construct a
knowledge bridge between ramili.ir .ind unfamiliar information with the
use of an analogy between learned principles and a familiar real-world
event or by providing illustrations within an abstract passage. Both enable
students to better comprehend difficult-to-understand material contained
in an initial abstract passage. and lacilitate the learning of a second
passage.

Sucher. John R.. and Anderson. Richard "Delay-Retention Effect in Natural

Classroom Settings." Journal rot Ethic utlwwi Psychology 67 (1975): 170-
173.

This experiment investigated the effect of teedback timing on student learn-

ing in a situation approximating a normal classroom. The sample con-
sisted of 144 high school students, who participated in groups in their
regular classes. Four treatment groups were formedtwo received in-
struction prior to an initial test and two received no instruction. One of the
instruction groups and one of the no instruction_ groups received feedback
immediately follow ing the initial test on Dfiv I of the experiment. The
remaining two groups received feedback on Day 2. Of two control groups
that received no feedback, one received instruction and took the initial
test on Day I and the retention test on Day 7: the other took the test on
Day I and Day 7, receiving neither instruction nor feedback. The form of
feedback the students received was identical to Inc initial test, except the
correct answers wt re underlined. Instructions for the initial test stressed
that students should respond only it they were sure of an answer and make
no wild guesses. Instructions for the feedback statei_l that the students
should study the questions and answers carefully without marking the
answer sheets. Instructions for the delayed test were identical to those for
the initial test. The results confirmed that giving students knowledge of the
correct response had a strong effect on the probability that they would
correct their mistakes. The results indicated that feedback was superior to
no feedback and that among the two feedback conditions. delayed feed-
back was better. 'the results favoring delayed' feedback were explained
with the interference-preservation theory. Over a delay interval. incorrect
responses .ire forgotten so there is less interference in learning the correct
answers from the feedbitck. In receiving immediate feedbtick, students
suffer from proactive interference from the inco`rrect answers to which
they have committed themselves. This study confirms 1. it giving students
feedback is primarily important in helping them correct their mistakes,
rather than serving as reinforcement.
84 E.FFKTIVE rte t

Traub, Ross E. "Importance of Problem Heterogeneity to Programmed

Instruction." Journal of Llucia wal Psychology 57 (1966) : 54-60.
The main purpose this experiment was to study problem heterogeneity
as a factor in learning a complex task from a self-instrr .tonal program.
The study also measured whether practice on heterogeneous and homo-
aeneous problem.; is better for students of different ability levels. The
tour -part learning task in the study was graphical addition of integers.
hree different kinds of problems were devised for inclusion in the third
section of the proeramheterogeneous problems, homogeneous problems,
and review problems. One Net 01 2i, problems wars made heterogeneous in
two respects. First, the contexts of the pri.blems were varied: second, their
answers varied in certain ways from one Frohlem to the nest. A second
set Of 2t) problems was homogeneous. The contexts of these problems
were constant and their answers were very similar, third set of 20
problems, the review problems, was not directly related to the skills learned
in the third part of the program where the problems were inserted. The
iLHr-day study was administered to 294 sixth-grade students. The three
experimental groups were given the .,irate program of instruction on the
first two da%. %k 1111C On Div each group worked on a different set of
problems. 1 he fourth part of the program served as the learning,e-kiter.on.
-I he results of the study indicated that the best performance was achieveit
by students who ho practiced with the heterogeneous problems. Practice on
homogeneous problems did not differ from practice on review-unrelated
problems. The findings. moreover. revealed that practice on heterogeneous
problkems caused students to make !ewer stereotyped errors and to omit
fewer responses. The effectiveness of practice with heterogeneous problems
was independent of students' aptitude. The author concluded that hetero-
geneous problems contain more information about the task than the other
kind of problems and therefore practice with these problems can produce
better learning of a complex task,

Wentline. Tim L "Mastery Versus Nonma Instruction with Varying Test

Item Feedback Treatment." Journal of 'until Psychology 65 (1973):
50-58.

This study explored the outcomes of varying amounts of feedback pro-

vided to studtkrits within the framework of the mastery learning strategy
as compared t, a nonrmistery instructional strategy. The subjects for the
study were 116 male high school students who were distributed among
six classes taught by three instructors. The learning material used in the
study consisted of revised, published materials dealing with automobile
ignition systems. Fight units contained instructions for completion,
behavior objectives, textual material, and a set of review questions derived
from the objectives. Three of the experimental groups were assigned to
the nonmastery learning treatment, which involved measuring each stu-
dent's progress at the time he finished the unit. When a student felt ready
 ANN(`/' TED BIBLI (iRAPUY 85

to be tested, he was given the unit achievement test and upon wmp.,.:tion
was instructed to continue with the next unit in the .:equence. All tests were
scored .end returned to students out the day following test completion. The
remaining three groups were assigned to the mastery learning treatment,
which was similar to the nonmastery treatment with one exception. Rather
than given a score, students were told whether or not they had reached
the predetermined level or mastery (SO percent) for the unit completed.
If the student met the prec.Aermined standard, he was instructed to
continue to the next unit. If he to meet the standard, he was
instructed to return to the instructional booklet and review areas of
weakness. Follow ing review or restudy, the student was retested with a
parallel form of the unit achievement test. The recycling could continue
for a maximum of three times before the student was promoted to the
next unit. In this experiment, three levels of specificity of feedback were
used. Two of the experimental groups received no specific item feedback
(no knowledge of results) from the items included in the test. Two of the
remaining four groups received partial item feedback (knowledge of
correctness of response) through the use of a special chemically treated
artivver sheet. The remaining two groups received total item feedback
(knowledge of correct response) for each test item. Students in the total
feedback treatment and students in the partial feedback group learned the
correctness of their response. Also, if an item was answered' incorrectly,
students were requested to respond a second, third, Or fourth titre until
they made the correct response. Three criterion instruments were used to
measure the four dependent variables immediate and delayed cognitive
achieverne attitude toward instruction, and time used for inAruction.
The study lasted for five weeks and subjects attended four 70-minute class
periods per week. The major findings follow. (1) Immediate cognitive
achievement as well as retention of cognitive material indicate a significant
advantage in favor of mastery learning over nonmastery learning, whereas
in terms of attitude toward instruction no differences appeared. (2) Partial
feedback treatment exceeded the other two treatments both in terms of
students' immediate achievement and attitude toward instruction. More-
over, the results show the total-feedback treatment as the lowest in terms
achievement. However, feedback specificity had no significant effect
on retention. (3) Time spent on instruction, as reported by each student,
wit-, significantly higher in the mastery strategy compared to the non-
mastery treatment. Also, the no feedback treatment was significantly
more time-consuming than the total-feedback treatment, while the partial-
feedback treatment did not differ significantly ! r-om either of the other
two treatments. (4) A greater difference in time spent on instruction
between the mastery and the nonmastery strategies existed for the total-
feedback treatment over the other two treatments. (5) Low ability stu-
dents, as mcasured by the Otis-Lennon Mental Ability Test, spent more
time on instruction than the high-ability students for the no-feedback
treatment and the partial-feedback treatment, but within the total-feedback
treatment high-ability students spent more time than did the low-ability
students.
 rFIli IP- Is..,11()( Ilt)N

RonaId. and Ryan. 1 er and Conmetitise

iassroom Fos Ironments la and It:menials
laiga.:,lett al octal :dies In
l!1.:/ It 1' M(.117;,'V (-0 ,)73 ) 4))2-4))7_

I he central prohlern this tails 4s,t to ysi-tain to A hat degree

elementary- N,:hool students ssho are eneaged in social studies inquiry
actomes Hitter in their achieyement and attitudes a a result of partieipat-
ing in either a cooper3t14 e ttr a compermse classroom ens ironment.
1 tehty-eaMt hith- and slyth-graders kere randomb, assigned ti' one oi the
three treatment conditions: cotlperatise. eompentoe, or control. I he tsso
experimental eroups were esposed to identical soectl skidies content for
Its d.os They v irked on inonirv-related problems ssithin suhgroups in
the et operause condition ,L114.1 IllskTerldefill 4 the compernise condition.
doperative suhiects e,ere assiened ti' suheroups or the or sis members.
COk-Termivek :yorkcd Together to complete various
AcIr_ Each meruher at a ,,uhLraoup ss.ls ,ISNI1-1110,1 a ,PCCillt: soh
and. thus, made an myloidual contrMution tossard the solution of an
in,ifilry problem. Memhers the subgroups. submitting the hest ssork-
each Me-lesson period sere as.irded a poster. ompentive
thc ,aher h on the same inn rs 44urki ook, but
mdtsidnalls- rather than in Nuhgrotir; After each five-lesson period. posters
ere av,arded to the sis individual students kith the hest ssorkhook. In an
.atempt to control the teacher personality variahle, tsso teachers invoked
in the snids tanght hoth experimental treatments. Each teacher taught the
cooperatise group for nine lessons and the competitive group for nine
lessons. The results of the study indicated no differences in achievement
hemeen the cooperative and competitive groups. This kas surprising
since presimis research suegested that cooperatke conditions positively
:Meet student tichievement. The achievement tot used essentially competi-
tive conditions and, theretore, ssas hiked in tavor of the students from the
competitive treatment. I he authors concluded on the basis of this analysis
that mean:nein! ot the effects of cooperative and competitive
classroom ens ironment on achievement should use alternative testing
environments. The results revealed that the cooperative subjects liked
social studies significantly better than the competitive suhieets and that
they liked sharing information, ssorkine tovether, and receiving group
grades, rather than individual tirades.

lahorik, John \ "Classroom Feedhack Behavior or Teachers The 7rtrtrtra

Erhictirt),7(1.1 R,.%euruh h2 1t r}h` 1 : 147-1

The studs esplored the nature of teacher verhal feedhaek during the
teaching learning process. More specifically, it investleated I I types of I

feedhiek teachers use and how frequently they use them: (2) the relation-
ship hetkeen teacher verbal feedback and the wade level of teachers and
students, the purpose of the lesson, and the type of student response. The
study used recorded lessons in several elementary schools, Anal,sis of the
 \ ,1 f 11 BIM li)(,!;. \!i(\ S
trarscrihed lessons carried out %, ith a teaehero,et hal feedhaek
Meld. 111:11In FCLI1101,:c, rcr,'Qnt.14v,, tcvtiHiA 1 he suhieets
ere eht hi- rde te.teliers and een sodhrade teacheis ,ind their
ot the teachers taimht a di,s,"t1011 ICNNOn on tme issue
and %).ere asked to dn. tide their Itissons into ti.v.o part s. a prereadin or
inn tner ,sliNoK,ion And a poidicaylin); deelopment Lliseussion 1 he
teedhack instriiment that ,inah, /yd the lessons contained 25 citegories
I dnect tee,lhAek and I I descrihm)._! indirect ieedhaek Direct
teedhaek t',:!;zr, orm remarks that com.el. mionnation to students
re.4ni; the dR i meir hctii ii,t Indn eel teedhack refers to oral
questions and ,tat,iments trom y, Inch students can inter [F aL ot their
heha%ior. I he results concerning the eeneral use 01 reeLiftick
'eh:. demonstrate that ddierer t f ries Lif teedhack %%ere used. hilt only
hide the nutuher ti
ieedhAck Ind!), khlah teachers used ram-4,M from ;1 to '7. no Fever
than : Witerent ti,pes C1 ,2 di i la h% lii teachers. I cachet's most
ireqHenti). :s 5 percent repeated the student lflL.l ,:ippro,.In_,.1 and
tor or ne i.k. h)pie tor diseiii' n V), ith the second most
ire rit ti.pe ; percent ). teachers called on the students to Further
dei.ei,p 4 7,2,p, Thc I sine the third mos. trequent pe of leckih.tA
F

perent 1. the teacher :4i: simple praise and moed the lesson to a
f):mi.ii in 'fiiclr' , ,usciission s. the types ot, : ,edhack used
more tr-cLinentk contained main!), positive ..ins\kcr repetition, v.hereas
teedhack ivied i 7equently in deelopment discussions mi11n1±. contained
pr ii Signitirant differences V.ere found in the type ot teedhack
used in the mo grade levels. Third-urade teachers used 0. pes :t teedhack
that contain et- 'simple. praise iind lesson pro,2ression, srth..urade to;tehers
I

used positive ansiAer repetition and solicited secral ansv.els. .1 he author

sti4tests that teacher verbal Feedback dum; the interactie classroom
sitiiIF a s ac, rather riind and emphasiied that the Fos types ot teedhack
used regulark \sere less intormational to 'students.
 References
Allen. D. 1. -Nome Effect'. vidvanc'ed ,nd I e.et Qi:e-::on on
the I earnin4 and Retention it Written Soeial Studizs jarth,11 Liu( a--
61 (1970 333-339,
Alien fni,emvatiori >f tiii ficiath,fiNinp (VVee'ff Llr harri
,1 Cia rt'ST and .4 entel'enient in and .4 tilitidek rO,Vand C 1,:( Marticruamx.
I'h 1) dissertation, University of Virginia. 1972.
.\ . J.. nd A;kins, S. -Die. jostieInvi Social Lit.A-acy
in the Junior FirM School." Metorifm 2 (1975): 4-51
Anderson. I. %V= "Time and School Learning' Ph.D. dissertation, University
of Chicago. 1973.
Ande:son. L. W. "An Empirical Investigation of Individual Differences in Time
to Learn." Journal ,if Educwional Psychohivs. 65 I 1976): 223-233,
Anderson, L. W.: Fvertson. C. M.: and Brophy. J. F. "An Experimental Study
of Effective -retching in First-Grade Re'.iding Groups." The Hemeritary School Jour-
nal 79 (1979): 191-723,
Anderson. I.. W.. tilvt Scott, C. C. "The Rehitionship Among Teiiching Methods,
Student Characteristics. trivi Student involvement in Le.ffning," Journal of Teacher
Education 29 (1978): 52-63.
Anderson. R. C.. and Biddle, W. B. "On Asking People Questions About What
They are Reading." In Pxychofocv tif Learnine and Sforivation. Volume 9. Edited
Bokyer, N`,V York: Academic Press, 1975.
Andre, T., zind Kuth isv R W. "Category Clustering in the Free Rectll of
Sentences." Thychologica/ Reports 29 i 1971 ): 631-634.
Angell, G. W. The Effect of Immediate Knovvledge of Quiz Results on Final
Exarnin.iti-in Scores in Freshman Chemistry."' Journal of Educational Research 42
19491: 391-194.
Arlin. M. N. "Leirning Rate and Learning Rate Var4ince Under Mastery
Learning Conditions." Ph.D, dissertation. University of Chicago, 1973.
Armstrong, J. R ed. ,4 Sourcebook for Me Et'aluation of Instructional Afaterial
and %1tIia. Milwaukee: University of Wisconsin, 1973.
Arnold. D. S.: Atwood, R. K.: n(1 Rogers. V. M. "An Investigation of the Rela-
tionships Among Question Level, Response Level, and Fapse lime." School Science
and Alathernatics 73 11971) 591-594.
Mtwell. A. \ °m et. R. E.: and Meyers. C. E. "Kinderg;:irten Behavior Ratings
as if Predictor of Academic Achievement.- Journal of School Psycholowv 6 (1967):
43-44.
Ausuhr.t D P. The Use of Advince Orgiini7ers in the Leztrning tmd Retention
of Mezimngful VerKil Nfatenal." Journal of Educational Psycholomy 51 I 196(1): 267-
272.

88
 III 1-I-R! Ncrs S9

Ihe np ;! I Letirm.17,,7 New Y ik

C iii.
1") I' .1 l.lcUl I1U. Nen ttk:
WIns.dn, Ir
P. Ind ;) "ni
.-dden: I e.arn
-7
\ l 11. J.e,r,h,.:

I) P And Ydusef. f Ill k'dile 1-7)..,,:rianina."7.1 I Nteaninefill

Fi 1 C.I'V 71L:- I ";-1 3t3,

"I lfl
A Si. m--ii;ltation and Sc.. " 1

Il 1.. It it h 1-rfei.is Ditferervial Instrn.-tional

ie:aal r r
%;;Ii,1!Ion And I:Aid-ter." Ph .D. Siaie

1,,k j..11*,,!

11:no. 5 he Rni 17:,t! Ifc,-11,,,nvs, I r cei. in Se o

an,:;: v,aal:is !st 1 in\ er-d.1% t ;94
II i 1 P aid K 1 }. 111 I ritcr,:ficc
rim I .ta 103.
1-tfo,k, H 'Thc l'k'r),,c.:1).11W,:.
et.-, Ifld I .0I In 1) Cin,ago.
H. -Stuttent I earn:ill.: and iN it lf 1 Lr rh 1111 Stdrd-
arils EdiiNriir!d( 11-,1:0?1", :SO i -14 I,
H.. .'rid Andrt--qin, I. \V. .1.!, r, Learn( ng Inorn,
nrk 1.47:5
BloA, I H.. and Burn,.. R. Ft. "Mader\ I inn nine." In R,Tien of Recearch in
FI'r't FdiILd hv I.. S. Shulman. 1;1: Pe.i,ock Puhlkhets.
Block, J. H arid Tierney. M 1. ",n Exploratiim it 1:AO Correction Proectliirei
--ied :'ner I.CJrnIfl Arproaehes to Instrution.- L(1,i«iti,F1.41
11111/ov,. till I 974
Rh worm B. 5. --Thought procesNes in Lectures .nid
oir Gcn-
era; Fallicanim 7 193), 1601644,
11,1,S
ihuh.lh,,k, cognnige
Domain_ 'Nett. Y,irk.!
Bloolri. B. S. .iii; Iiza and 01,4110, in iiritPitin C naracteristies. New York: Wiley,

Blo.im. B. S. "Learning far Niasterv." it eth(tiii it, C, W11,7f 'tit ( I 968

1-11(wnit 1-.1 S. "Nia-dery Learnine,- In .1tinny I and Traci/cc!.
Falitgit hr I H Plonk. 'NeV. York: Halt. Rinehart and WinNton. 1971.
Blotim, B. S. litirt.iin han a I i iii, if, i 7.40k York: NIL:(tritN"-
Hill. 1976.
Bloom, B. S. "E,00r:thle Lemming Conditions for AIL- Teacher ( 5 (1977):
Bloom. H. S. "Introduction In NIastery LearningTo the Teacher." Paper pre-
sented ri Teacher In nn ng Sminar. Chicago. 197S.
Bloom, S. Pcrf utzt, 1 ross-.--Oe 1 ntoring in the Schools. Washington, I).C:
tional Institute in f-alitc.rion, 1979-).
Boyden. I Pupil lieh,wor 111 Junior Classroorns.- Britoil lowing' of rclaranort
4i (1975 122=129.
in C. -"Teache- Expetjation:
Sodopsychologic.11 Dvniimies." Revicw
Educational Reyearch 46, i 19761: Is -=.11. 13,
Brophy. I. F., and E i.ertson. C. NI. /.earning fni,nz Teaching: .4 Developtnentai
Pervpertil,'. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Inn., 1976.
Tit I,,t [ I It tot.

;Te..T.cotes dtt- "roltt-Tp.:s tstdt tl

If I F. rid I (

k nd
[4 TtTn. i I 1h t ,r R,.---.- 11.f1=: 1 ,-,011;rz
l',.1.!1-11 I Vs,, k=r (,1,11110, 1) ,11,,;;I:.:TI,q1,
f it I

t4E,,Ari 1-10:,,r,i tr. fl f:.: Neu.

NE 0 1 1``+.
fl'icr S , t !,. ,; s.t-T t ttn-
PT, P1(5.,
lnr!1: P I I . "krvikin Crottp' d on=

! II. 1. 71, ot" '--;,hool I ts`,11 TIM I

or,

-Tni dedi hire 4 Hitt ifeide 1 5

Poro, 4= :tt
drTst11. I H. ,,r , st Uii /.,
tss 111i ,dt.1 F n f enter tot Resed:sh md DeT.elopittent on 1.,111,:d-
tonal 14:feren,es, Pftt-I-
C.t,hn. \ ot. The Isilt itin fAiesd on d Formal
Ind 1 eht. K 1. "1-,!,);-,_.
t-ditt.,cdott tl Tse-dne it; HtIf
hd..p.tot:k. tint f R "Sstenditi Relriforment dcline Per-
forreldne of 1 nderdehiet,intz Students.- fortoial .-11T/T4,,/ Bcilat f',11 ,fral% %IA 4
1

I-ohh, J. A. t)ic 'if I twene,

: (-enter dt Oregon for Resedr.,:h
he Ifehds lord! I du.:,itittri nit the 11=indtt:apped, ri
D.:partroent or Spe-t1 J-dittedtton. 1 niTtersio. nit C treon. P4-+4
(obb . J. A. l'RelitiOW,bir if I)1,,:rele:CItetstooni lich,o.tors to I--ourth4Irade
A,:aderrhe loi,toNd .,t i 19'21: -4.sid (=, -;

I. kmant, E. Tcti( ty1.1 t'irFi.,pror,,,i,,rwl CI tets, tit it,. I CNingilin,

f-

D C. Heath. PJ-1
Coro.. S The 1-.T..ihers Out-1,11k the Pupils." / /1,,,,1 Rem tv 48 1U44t

Crkln,t,:h, I I E,/,,c,rrittntri fTT-T.-/lohte,. ed Nett, 'init...: fldreindrt lirace

.

1,1%,tnkn:ch, Int:, ITT-7.

CronF,tri I I nil S'noc. K. F. .42Tritri.lto (yid (1 huh Nevi
'ink IrNington. 1976,
lir.
rte. I. /Ile P,TtnidpirT ant/ /Truf nue of IttrirrldrI ).-/t1 iTtfricatutti, Cineinndti:
R 1 dtrke. IsIS4
CusidT., P. Poitic Sc-F: I SttacqiN -en k York: ifolt RintThitrt
,trat Winston. 197:J.
Ddhlolf, ,T1Iteuit, tout 0dt-recut:on (ntrt
ii 7"---ew 'fork: fedehers Colleee Prcy,, 19'
FW hildren's InteT-sentenee PednitittoTT in the
C 1

Re2dll k')f Shirt 1)eseripto.e Pdss.tee s.- iometri ,t1 tdirit:driontri Psycholoel ITh 197 (1)

1) 1^.is t I -Cldssroorri t)nes.rions ,Askett hT. So,:dstl Studies Student leaehers.-

1,)1(rnell =t l'fi)- 1: 21-26,
i 1 I11,2,A, if PT,2st-Te I line (pun Student \shioetnent in fle;ilth
Rinca!ton:- 1 /u 1,,urnal 1.,,litu,nwif Pi I 19701: 214:3.
Ifennison. P f: .Ati 'irk)ri i ill C i ( Los in open plAn sehool.-
rhesIN. L:nryerwv ,-11 I anca,=ter. I971.
 DeRose. 1. Independ,..-r. S;;:,k
CC

DeY.nr, I. -.C..i,,rourn ind ',Ass

'"
3r1r f _h
7,, I , 3
Pe.t.Lo.A.
W and Pond,--. .rt i,hu! I n=
".2
DhLh.h4L-I. 3 ii H H Ard e
InST.:14z:on_11 .:4444:,.' ;4 14..^444,;::
[Mr 1.,

/4.-4-4! ;' ;4' 141:44 --!44:444Lri 1"\-4,-;44;4; 4.4% 1'1'

''
4

DL7-k:n. NI . Ind H H
harr in,oini
Lhh \t I Ins71,;,:ion.il NI , .1
4 %, 'fr, tf. !!N %; , j_ I k.,1,,c!v,
R I.. Sum
ii nil.
C
ifluirLfl ', R4; zr
H. .,n,1

1-:n. F. Vs -1-T;.2,i*,:on.11 Help or

(19rs): 2i 1-282:
D C md v,hers: -Proriirnmod Tinorini.oi A 1
Aid imid
Rosto.irh (.2.it,Irrnr?'. 1 Ill I.
FrQel. R. S. ".An Fxrerimental :Study of the FrTet ot S!.ited
fives on Ahievernent In .i nit ,)t InstrikHon on And 13,A,0
it "Numeration.- M. A. ties;'. Lniser:ats if PrhS
Ft,er, D C. \dull Le:trner
Ins:rn,,,ion.t1 (r-lc,heN.- Ph 1).
dissertAtion. University of Californi,1 At I os p)h9
Ferroor. I) F.: limkholdt. I) 1-1.1rnhlin, R: I..; And Smith 1 .
ut ( onlIngent Reln.roretnnt
tieh,o.tOr on tkolk,
../,0,0roal !-.
NIarlia:-.t. R. I Fisher. L. NV_ ilociTs:k1 iril 1-lb2:tc..t1 Imic
in i)itferr.t. Cnttnt nf 5,_-,ond and Fifth C mimic eadin4 and Nlathem.c.ics
Curriculum." Piper presented rhe Annual (on(ernce of the American IIIIICEIiILEI
m

Resear:h Assoc;atinn. 'y'ork, 1977.

Field, R I., and Okev. James R. The Effect,
of Fortnatie fr,ilitation and
Rernesti,ttion on NI,rstery of Inte1lectn,s1 Skilk f be 1 oitr1,11,0. fAirgcatiopla! 16 I, tjo II
7i ,1.47-70,
Firi.QtraTA I):. mind \tisiihcl. I) P "Covnitp.e
AtFoctise FaLtors in the
Le'arning and Re:entton III Contro%ersLil /lam ephute;: /"%ychohowv
54 1Iiu: 7L54.
Flandcrs, .N A. A fII .1v lam-44-4frn lb ii Nev..
19711. Addison-NN'e,les-,
-An Ancill,,is of the Oril t:fitestionin
W_
in Selected Colorado
Primary Cl;is,room." olorado 'State
F--ras.e. I.. I. -Houndary (ondition, for Mathematic
JFIuutur 1%-low 1 Eilig-
cutiona/ Rpthirrh 41) I 1,17o 117-31x.
Erase. L. r. "Fire,:t It One,tion I ocxion. Pilon
and \lode 17non Retention
of Prose Mterial.- 1444[144,4411 if 14:414t4 fit i14,14441 l'0;4-414441t4t!% -'1) l'inN : 2.24=244,
F51se. I.. T. "Poraraph Organieation It N.Vrim'n
.1he influence it
Cork.optual Clustering Upon the 1,e,,,e1 md Or.gAntiation of Recall.- Jourri,11 44f hilie-
catio,:,21 Pv_vcizot,44,4%4 60 ( 1969): 394-41)1,
92 Cl [lin% 1Ns1RL (= I I( rI

Fra,e. T.. T. "Some l'nprt...di,:ted Ftf-,ts of i)itferent Upon I eartiing

FroP1 I onnect,..d I i

L. I. and S,,ti.kart./. B. J. 'Ttte,.-t QiI.25:106

UP Prose
Furst. N. F. "Fhe Multiple 1 .1P gLI,We kit tk 1.1N,loor11:' 11.1), dirtittion
Templu I niersit%,
iiiuirutiirin_SoIiit
N.
Reating.' ft ii or
0.ige. N. L. and
I tlrjttit
of the
iIt
1"kNinielit
ii I e-tur-
I ea,,her', 1-14!,11m-c-..s in
:.

ing In 1",'ITI,e V: K.. nt 1).y. It .s!,

A. A. Hell \e\,. I ea,:lier, Ctille!:e Pie,', . 1071.
:

( agne, L) 1-Fiat. . S. B and lung. I. R. "t, onihnied Iii ot I. ii 11

ii .ind I L' F iiiii i or:gam/anon in F F. dl I II it 111P I Q,e 11111.g fliumi
I i';
;

(i,t4n. E. D. and Rothkopf. I QM- Organizati..m it-R1 I earning. Cloak.-

Po( t 67 11075): 444-450,
i4nc:, R. NI. I 1.(m-,1;:z. ork-. Holt, lxii t.ti t iii t Win-
ston. Iwo.
o.igne. R. NI.. :int! Hmticr. O. C. -Stud% lit Retention ot some lopi,2s oi Ide-
mentan, Non-Metric OeonietrN. ./01071.11 tau,Haional 54 (19:-.3):

Cciene. R. M in I other ',i iii 1= t,',)r).. in I earning NI iii oe,mietry."

NIonog,;;Iph ot ( jI II I Mt,' I 42
Oill NI I) "rile Cc:e of out. iii in leaching.- Roirw ,)! 1 tIlt ii 1 iii lic-
s-turch 4t (1970 707=720.
(1,111,tght:r. I J. rh,.1:01r Gifted Children in the C1:155rooni.-
E/onentary ft iii, 42 I i9h5i: 559.5ns
oardner. 1- M. "Effects k)f ('mtextual Orgarm%itions on
Prose Retention.- J,,firma 7 Edu,attonai fia J9-7) I

(iarner. J.. :tni.1 Bing, M. the Flusiveness of P1,em.ilion jid 1)1tierences in

feacher-Pupil (onta,:ts.- intereitorwe 4 (1973): 34=42.
Ci.tver, D.. and Richards, 1-1. C. 1.)inien,ions kif Naturalistic Oh,en.:ition tor the
Prediction of Aademic I0iirtia/ of Edina:lona' R,Nial(li 72 (1979p,
123-127.
Olvrin. S. M. and OiVesta. F. J. -Outline and Ilieraralical Organilation ii Aids
fur Study ,ind Rctriit il fortrnat or ha/wan-01w/ 1 botoer 1977 ir
(joldherg. F. "Facets of Imagery on I eirninQ Incident.11 NI iii il in the Class-
room:- Journal t+1 Etim-Litional Pvveholov,, him 1)74 233-237.
(iood, T. L. and Beckerman, -1. NI. -Time on Task: A Naturalisti,: Study in
Sixth-Orade CLassroonis.7 he Ii rut .School loirrtwl 7H I I )7 I I93-fol.
(tour!. F. L., and Brophy, J. Proph)xy." Today's Julio alum 60
(1971): 52-53,
(Mod. T. L., and Cirtmws, I) N Te;.tehing Etrects: A Process-Product Stmly in
Fourth-Oracle NLithematics Classrooms." Journal of I Cik'ller Education 28 (1977):
49=54.
Oreahell, I. C. "The Effect of Stirtmli Input on the Acquiition of Introductory
tieornetric (.0twepts hi Flement.lry School Children.- School .Scitli.-e (111j ,Viiithe.
ittiltit'V I.XX\ ill (1975): 1211-12n.
Oamp, P. V. "Wh:it's Happening in the Element:try (Tissroom.- In Rcveureit
Iwo Clavvroorn iort,ccvsev. Edited by h 1. We!,thtiry and A. A. 13ellack. No,k York:
FeacheN College Pres,... 1971.
Kike, C. The im ri f Stn.ritied Wriucti Cmlitnents e 1 e lot it tit In and
Attitude Ahfcbra and Goffill'ir. Ph 1) dissertation, Pennsvkania State Uni-
yersitv. 1973.
Hamther, B. "Grade 1-xpectations Ditferentkil Comments. trlid Student
Pertormance*- Journal of Educational l'iveholot: t 63 (1972): 4:4-458.
 KLi,FRENCTS 93
D. F. Learnine Sirs and Prior Farr Theory." In Pt'veitolt.
Sr 'i Scierce, Sioiv General
hk S. Kock. N,e,,x 'fork: \La, [AV, ANL '),"e.
Harlow. H. P. "l he 1-ormation ut Learn St r,941(, '1;11 ii kci tr-vc
(1940 :

fl.trrs. ,A. J. Morrison. C.; Serwer. B. L.: and (jolt!. L. A Contiinnithit of

CR-1/-1. P','Iccr: C""71',1rU4' h '1:141CS With fiL.Wf 1:r
CHI,Irtur (;,,i(lYv. New York: Division of Teacher Edi_kation of the Lay
Lnivert,try of New 'York.
Haynes, H. "Fhe RAition of Teacher Inn:Ilnee. Teat-her IxpLrience and
Type of Sghool to TItpeS of Qtiestions." PhD. dirt.toon. George Pe.inods. ollege
for le,khers. 1'05.
Jtr. i, v -tr,01:1!on fn Learniry4 :In.! ,,{
Ir1M7thoh.- Ph.D. kierr,thorh 1..nt%crNIP. of Ingago. 1977,
FU,-klin, J. "A StoLII.-
NV. ni. Techniques for Pr.2,1icii4, P.t:terhs
of S,.-h,!.E.,tc lleh.o.lor." Ph.D. diNt=ert.Eion. 1,:nivc:rity of
/Idler. 1. fl. "Learning front Prose ktxt: life,:ts of Re hi. 1 et.01. Tnserted
Ouem:on Ditfigtilt!.-, and Indp.idual Differences." I ii Ii iq
fit-) 197 ): Is9-2111,
Hops. H.. an r.1 Cohb. J. A. Survivor fit /1 in the rdnearIinal
arrh and lidertclilion. Lugcne, Ore.: Department ot 8recia1 f-d-
Jlop,, K. and k ohht J. A. -Initial Investigations into .Atidernic Sark kat= Nkill
Training, Direct Instruction. and 1-irst-(irade 1011,71gil til Iltilit 11'11,11,4j
PC1 on 11074): 548=351.
Hovve. M. J. A.. and (ollo-. L. 'The Influence of QueNtions Fneountered Farlief
on I.e.trning from Prose." BritiAlt Journal of Educational (1')70):
14.9-154.
Howe, M. I. I A ac- I Stner U "Nesentation Variirblect Students' :Activities
ifl ,Mt, ttninful I L irnin. BririAlt Journal of Lillicialonal l'Ayeinl.,L'y 45 (1) 75): 52-
I.
fitidelm R. B. 'Attending and Thinking in the Clitscroom." Sympiwitini paper
presented to the American Psychological Association Meeting New York,. 1000.
(Mimeographed.)
Hughes, D. D. "An Experimental Investig.ition of the Effects of Pupil Responding
and Teacher Reacting on Pupil Achievement. Experiment le.wher Readon"
American Educational R1-arc -h buirnal I (1973): 21-37.
Hunkins. F. P. 'The Effects of Analt.sis and Ft.:dilation Questions on Var. ing
Levels of ,A,hieyernent." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Lducational Research Association, Chic:leo. 19tdi.
Hankins. F. P. "The Influence of Analvsis and Fysiluation Questions on Achieve-
ment in Sixth Cintde Social Studies.' Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American FAIIICitt l(Mal Research A.ssociation, New York, 1007,
Jackson. P. W. Life in classrooms. New York: flolt, Rinehart and Winston,
1968.
Jackson. P. W., and B.fiiri! F Fducationtil Objectives and the Jnic of Teach-
ing.' School Review 73 t ('#05 ): 207-291.
James. W. Principles of Pvreliirlinry, Vol. I . New York: Henry Holt and Com-
pany, 1890.
Johnson. D.; Johnson. R. T.: Johnson. J.: and Anderson. D. "Effects of Co-
operative Versos Indkidualized Instruction on Students' Pro, 06:11 Ilehat.lor. Attitudes
Toward Learning, and Achieverrient." Journal of Educational l'Ay(holii it ( 1976):
4-1.6-451
Kaplan. R. "Effects of Grouping and Response Ghttracteristics of instructional
Objectives on Learning from Prose." Journal of Educalionul PAych,./higy 68 (1)7(i):
424-430=
L4 FFri:c;itt. ilttti

. arid R.,:ht, ri. F 7 -IoNf.L-1,:lor,ti D:retions to learn-

Cf' I tfec:s at Passage i aral ot 01,!ectiae-Relraant I ifllent .- Journa/
wE,Licatr,,,?a! riri 4-rs-45n,
( 19-4
Kaplan, R and Simmons. -Ftfects of liistructional Ohiecnaes Used as
Onent.rlat Stimuli or as Suninitr Reaiew Lpon earnaig." Lurrnal 1 ludiiiu-
tuna Pu '1 run N-4 614-r22
Karartnus, R. A "Ditierenti.d imination Feedhack reatotents. Learning and
Am:tides: Ph D. dissertation tmaersity at Minims, 1966.
Karraker, R. 1 -Knowledge of Results and Inorte..2t Recall of Plausihle Multi-
pie-Choice .-Alternatiaes.- 1-.iircoti trio/ P%.f 55 1196- it 11-14:
Kersh. \1 F. Sin for Niastery IL arning in 1-'i th Cirade Arithmetic."
Ph D dissertation. maersita Sit hiciel (

111 ho, Park J and Park, , sa, /Nara, tiwiai

.f tel tRevearcit Pcp,,rif Seoul, Korea: Korean Fdricational 1)aeloprnent Institute,
197.3
KI111^2^2'. R 1 TIN' triCrl% it it' ,i!:(11. tvrif on Academic /',F-
trr torh r;fad, Sitru (hi) I still . Uniaersita ot texas at Austin.
1971
Koran. AI I and Koran. I I . Jr -interaction of Learner .Aptitudes with Ques-
tion in Learning rt-oni Prose Lairnal r t:iiricati,fial i'cscholire 67 (1975):

Kourun, F S and R F. Signal Systems of lesson settings and the Task-

Related Rehr..or of P:eschool Children." Journal of Educational Psschcoldey 66
(1974; 7 554-7;62.
Kownslar. A. I I. tid. /caching .4rricricon fir-mu-v. Washington, D.C.: National
Council for Social Sturlies Yearhook, 1974.
Krauskopf. C. J. "Fse of Written Responses in the Stimulated Recall Method."
fourn,r/ or Educational pvvi-horoca, 54 11963i. 172_176.
Klithaaa, R. W. Schmid, R. F. and Walker, C. H. -Temporal Organization in
Prase.' .4 mcrican tducattonal Re.NeaFeh Journal 14 I 19771; 115-123.
Kulhaay, R. W., and Saaenson. 1. "Imagery Instructions and the Comprehension
of Text.- British J-mrnal in Educational Psi r rurica:s. 45 1975) 47-51.
Kulhaay. R. W:, Yekoaach. F. R.: and Dyer, I. W. "Feedback and Response
Confidence," Journal of Educational Psscholtiev 6S r 19761.: 522-525.
Lahaderne, H M. -.Attitudinal and Intellectual Correlates of Attention: A Study
of Four Classrooms.' Journal of Educational PoTholoKs. 59 r 196S): 321)-324.
LaPorte, R. E:, and Nath, R. -Role of Performance Canals in Prose Learning."
Journal if Educational i'scholovs 68 t1976 r: 26(1-264.
awton. I P. "Fifeers of Ada ince Organizer Lessons on Children's Use and
Understanding of the Causal and Logical Because." Madison. Wisc.: University of
Wtsconsim I976. Fyne-written.)
I is ton J P and Wansk.i. S. K. "Advance Organizers as a Tettehing Strritegy:
A Reply to Barnes And Clawson." Review of Educational Research 47 (1977): 233=
244.
Lee, S. S. "The Effects of Visually Represented Cues on Learning of linear
Function Rules." Journal of Ltrerimental Child Psychdoey 12 (1971): 129-145.
Lee, S. S. and Dohson, L. N. "From Referents to Symbols: Visual Cues and
Pointing Effects on Children's Acquisition of Linear Function Rules." Journal of
Educationa/ Pvvciroita,ry 69 I 977 ; 620-629.
Lesner, J. The Effects of Pupil-Corrected Tests and Written Teacher Comments
on Learnine to Snell in the f np,r Elementury (trades. Ph [3 dissertation, University
of California at Los Angeles. 1967.
Leain. I. R. "Inducing Comprehension in Poor Readers: A Test of a Recent
Model." Journal of Educathinal Psychology 65 (1973): 19-24.
 1 I RD P \I I I

o /
P , ,1 P 1 cp,c,
r)0la17.,q) I .,- Pn I .1 L,M. t
I I I iio \\ Lot H her \ieriiI
! I :1, /, 1

H I o 1 N P:
I ,,2,t1 I iod her. Her ii ee t Hdc: Art
L.etnio _ki% lHi 1111
..% k fr \1 ;

11.,j'.:71,. tfld I I H No. 1 \ 1.,-.ern;no

);

Marei. S
\=1,1 I,!
. I ^ , , 1ll.Y0 I. /.;,ot
!;:, I Ph I) .r!
STA10 I ni 19-11
R Fisher, 1 IoLt. N ind 1),11 -Ite.2n-anne. tie, triliti-
Studv 1 Je.m.n' ton. I ahor.coi,..
Marshall, W I) \V '1 e,iher Vet hal Iloilt. ind I caaer and
Pupil rhinkinc ii..iL / ;(. f?, ;1
'P4-102,
Ni,o, NI A "1:nh.inrnerit-, and Sqnpliti,.,ition).. .af c-I.ihles in A \
Pre.)eivalion), A %..n g paper W ashineton, I) C : S Derai011,2nt of Health,
Education and W. elt ire. I9a.s,
N1ter, R. F. firferent Prohlern n C offirc!:=0-:1,2s 1-stablished in I earning .11%

Computer Pro..2r,irnining ith and Vithout Aleanine011 Models." J,)if,Izel f 1».111)4-

)toil Pvs..i...o n 9-5 )
H. F. F rstr.t trio-ter t 1)[tf,.,kV, R,2,ISlin %c110,1 bs
lest=like I- -i ri A1 ,cherndli,7N 1 ext." f",s, 67
1197): 165169.
MeConkie. (1. W.: R,tvner, K iii W'ilson, S. "lAperimental Manipul.ition I I

of Reading Strzttefnes." juirFnal /n,/e,.

M,Donald, J. -Report on Phi II of Beginning I i_i hi_ I ilu ation Stni,1),'"
jour,q(111,f flerlr [-:,111-attut? 27 (1976): 19=02.
in ,1telues,Then, A "Dire,tion f e Iresti:es:T.;
lit Quesztorts in
Prose Material."
Measel, and Mood, I). W. .-1e,,,,,her
blm affothil Pr I it 10-2 t
ifeha.,i,ar and leacher and Pupil
Thinking in Eli_rnni ml, School." Iii I qtrruil ,,t
00-102,
b IF I Fit 1972):

Mel,afrs, R. F. "Resolution f nerio k {aims C.,fn.erning the f--ifet of Be-

hx.loral ()hiecti%es on Strident Learning Rrw (Itional Reward! .ftf
t9"s I: 201-1112.
Niftier, O. I ollahoratr)e Teaching ,Ind Puri! Ihunkinv2,- iaqtroa/ icaoleF
Educutom 17 i 1966)- 117,i58
Moody. F. F. ,,f Tctif ficr C,^'IttflefIty re'rtr(dev"
AcItieverm.flf hv foil i'crfornitint PhD . fliswrtation,, Univeriity of
Rocheqer, 1970,
Morsh. J. E. -S,...stem-atic Ohwo.allor, of Instrwror De% elopmental
Report AFPTRC-IN=56-52. San Antonia Fix Sit Force Personnel and 1-rdining
Research Center, Lackland Air Force Base- 195h.
96

of 7,:a:h t
itkrir F. C I in. J .: .ird ',111.'en R. earning
',Uzi elf ...tpiritutia,,ii
seRiiiencei
37
;

(i, ,%[11=! 1 1)1Fect1o,!,

j;:cd, b j a I , dcs7L k: I he hit ii.it:on.d s.,
19-6.
f)lson. S711,!v liehan.ior vir,!,1! 11sv-
chol,,-_ 22 1911 : 339=454.
(Lz,.c111%.
ijnoe,.-.17-, u t N
P.tk:!. R. L e . -the
t.
I). -s:udent Imokernent in the 1.e.uninc PioLess." Ph D. RAI-serration,
(Intl 1 1 ! tss: (-on: iinzencv

P F. H. -1,-.1,11,:r ,,r11ni.:11!-- and iL1t Pcif s,-,ern 1 kHr

1-;,e!,ni.cnr,

Pah Eiri.iv.erx in \ssoc Luke LiLjtnin Lnd Nfeniorx..-

-2r,
and I crhai Pr 11th *.s.;evR ) Ruk: Flir. kltiehart .ind Win-
ston. l')-1
Par :R1w,kski. W. "Ftfe,..t of CuriosiR on Inchlernal I eamine.- Journal of 1-Jlacti.

I' ne. A. "1 he Sele,:tion .ifid lioattnent of Data for Certain

skin Prohlenis. A Methodoloeical II k Ph .D. i II I tio.eisit> of C hicogo,

P.:rkins. ff. V. "Classroom Heh.oior and Under.ichioertient." Ednea-

ti,and 1.hintal 2 1-12,
Plcot.nian. I ST mud. J. B. -Effect of Informing Pupils of the Cortectnesi
of SI
hen= Re,ronses to Ohjet:t1%e [eat Questions."' ./,,rirriat ut L.R11(c,ititritil Hoefirch 36
i 1932i: In=70.
Ronolds. J H trd Glaser. R. "Effects of Repetition and Sp.iced Roiew I'pon
Rerentnin Or ('omplex I:cart-tine 1.1Nk."
a
/6/11,e;ti,./hij fist IV
I 19(14 297-308.
Rho.lils, P. A. Ia I ill 111111 it tie Tett( her Conon,nic and the Pert,irtelance
1

of Slow Learnerv. Ph :1). disserr.ition. Unieriity of \I an, lan,IR 1967.

Rice. 1). R. "I he L- ffect of Question-.-80,kine Introduction on Preservice Fie-
rnentRiry Science Fetchers." I LIItfI ii f Re Cattail in ,Science leochifty 14 (1977):

RickartN, J. P. and August.. G. J. "Ciener.itke Underlining Strategies in Prose

Recoil.- JoterPtlil ()f l'0,flmloo 67 I i97 ): s60-86s.
RidwRords. I. P., end 131VesNi. F. J. -1 ypa .ind Frequencies of Questions in Proces-
sing -1 extuol Nfateriol." fourriiit f.ff ../ R.iwurionu/ IhlihIILU fih 1974 I: 3-14.362, F

Roh%er, W. Jr Intl Ammons, NI. S. "Flibor.ition -Ertining and fliired

As-ocitte I e;irning Efficiency in ( hildren." Antrnal of Ldinational 1"%vritoloity 62
Ii )71): 376=383.
RohwerR W. D., Jr., and 14;irris. W. I. "Nfedia Effects on Prose learning in `Evio
Populxions of Children.' ./,/iF,/(// of /...iiticeArioviii rkycholovv 67 F 197c F 651=657.
Rohwer. W. U Jr ., and NI.itz. R. "Iniproii2 Aural I oinprehension III NA hire
and HI ick Children. Pictures Versus Print." fituraul of Fxpethnental Child Psycho/0;y
19 (1975): 23-36,
Rosenshine, R. "Obiectively Measured fiehoviorol Predictors of Effectieness
in Expiaining." In Rcv.t/FtIt /no) Clay-tnan Pr,irr.vwv, Recent Pe velopmenv, rind
rr Stcriv: Vdited by I Westbury and ,-1t. A. Bell Rick. Nok 'fork: ColumbiRi Univer-
sity Tethers College Press. 1971.1.
Rosenshine. H. liohdviors- anti Stwient hirveinent. National Founda- 1

tion for I-.ducationai Research in England and Woles, 1971h.

-
 Rosen-hine. "Classroom I , i.yrholey bine th-
F Nv I. G ige 11....iii Press. IU
RoSt:n,hine. H Ctniitr. I tine ttd !ion 1..1 R., 1,
FindOo!S t:ti I's". 1 PC:ei,)1 ii I II Ilhc!
lierkeie... : to 9
RL1N,. I) RU flihil B1
I t,'.1I-1111111 .1.1 In
I ca,-ning in P-eschool Children.- I I"- i !.1i. r {:rtii n 1g1; Iiir 4
pints), 174-....1
Rotbkopf. Fr 7. -learning from Maieri n l'xplo.-.0"ort of the Couriol
of Insre,tion fich.olor hr Ti-1 ike }in ns 1 /?, i/

Rotbkonf, F.Z. !)iigs.ion S,ftedtilt2s. Intt_utretsonal hlr.er

and Incidental 1 earn from W;;t.en
s7=q2.
Rothkopf. F. 7_ and 1-11sbi,os. I F liverspe-sed
f)iiestiims on I eartnno from Writ.gn 1.0-
C.S Ph-17 I u=il
Rotbk,,rf. 1.. 7 and Karlin. R. "Et...Nor:A:ion t.f the tui1r if 1,:ns1.% and

R irhk p F 7 mu Koether. NI F. -111-4ructional II! ects of 1)is,1,-,,.tiLies Ii

Content and Oreanitation Beween Stud.; (+oak .trid Infornlation
70 t 1978i 67,71.
Roer. J. AI . and Cable. (i: "Illitstrations..Analoeies .ind Eacilitatke Transfer
in Pr,) Learnine.:- imirit:t or It,/uninttu,i Pkvc/toftt'c hS itrhi,
Roeit. P N -Effects of Speeit'cio :Ind Position if Written Instrimional Objec-
tives on Learning from 1.eLftire,- (197):
40-45.
Sanwels. S. I.. and Turnure, I F. "Attention and Reading .A.bievement in
First-Cirade Boys int1 Girls,' journal of 1:ducationtil l'^o( 197 4):
Sassenrath. J. M.. and fiar..erick, C. -Fifeets 41( Differential Itt2edbaA from
Examimitions on Reten. and Transfer.- If )11r,1{11 Of &hit fitif ilthil
-1 cIi
(1965)- :59,20.
Scandimi. J. M. "Fxrci,4itory Tetiching of Hier.irchieal Subject Al.itter.- I HIP ii
of Structural Learnimt 2 (1969): !7-25.
Schmidt, R. "A Schema -Theory of Discrete Motor Skill Learninu." Pstvcim-
/t.tmicat Retiew t12 11975): 225=260.
Schreiber. J. F. Fe.tchers' Question -.Asking Techniques in Socitil Studies." Ph F)
dis-sertation, University of hint a. 1967.
Sheppitrd. W C.. ..trid T aeD,tti mot. h-I, G. "Design .Ind Evaluation of i Pro-
grammed Course in Introductory Psychology." foitruat mu f Applied Behavior malt iii
3 (1970): 5,11.
Shimron, I. "Imagery and the Compreheryttion of Prose by Elementary School
Children.'" Ph.D. dissertation. t'npersity of Pittsburgh. 1974.
Shimron. I. "Learning A.:tkities in Prescribed instruction.' ',omit.-
tional Science 5 11976): 391-4111.
Shrago, Af. J. no, Hint r uf ,4 rprovinv I eticlicr ommenrs lull Pupil ,4chieverront
unit Attitude. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Kansas, 1971).
t: Siegel. L. C: Carpretta, P. J.; Jones. R. L.; and Berkowitz. H. "Stu-
dents-,.' Thoughts During (lass. A Criterion of Educational Research." lotirmi! of
Lthiciatonal Pxycholowy 54 (1963): 45-111
Simon. A., and Rover. F. G. eds. .Vitrrorr for Behavior: An Antbolottv of Cla..o-
room Observation instruments% 14 volumes, Philadelphia: Research for Better
Schools, 1967,
98 EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION

Simons. R. H. The Et leer Dillerenthd Incentives on Academic Per-

14-

formance at the Upper Elemenhiry Level. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Miami.

197 L
Smith, I. K.. and Wick. I. W. 'Practical Problems of .Auempting to Implement
a Mastery Learning Program in a Large City School System." Paper presented to the
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, 1976.
Smith, A. The Effects of Two Variables on the Achievement of Slow Learn-
ers on a Unit in M:ithematics." M.A. thesis. University of Maryland, 1967.
Soar. R. S. An integrative Approach to Classroom Learning. Philadelphia: Tem-
ple University. 1966.
Solomon, D.. and Kendall. A. I. Final Report: individual Characteristics and
Children's Performance in Varied Educational Settings. Spencer Foundation Project,
1976.
Spaulding. R. L. Achievement. Creativity, and Self - Concept Correlates of Teach-
er-Pupil Transac''ons in Elementary Schools-, Hempstead, N.Y.: Hofstra University,
1965.
Spencer. R. E., and Barker. B. An Applied Test of the Electiveness of an Ex-
perimental Feedback Answer Sheet. Research report 293. Urbana. 111.: University of
Illinois, Measurement and Research Division. Office of Instructional Resources, 1969.
Stallings, J. A. 'How Instructional Processes Relate to Child Outcomes in a
National Study of Follow Through." Journal of Teacher Education 27 (1976): 43-47.
Stallings. J. A. "The National Institute of Education Study of Teaching Basic
Reading Skills in Secondary Schools." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association. 1978
Stallings, J. A,. and Kaskowitz, D. Follow-Through Classroom Observation
Evaluation. 1972-73 Menlo Park. Cal.: Stanford Research Institute. 1974.
Starkey, K. T. The Effect of Teacher Comments on Attitude Toward and
Achievement in Secondary Mathematics Classes: An Experimental Study. Ph.D. dis-
sertation. Pennsylvania State University, 1971.
Steg, D.: Matt !email. M.: and Htimmill. D. "Effects of individual Programmed
Instruction on Initi:11 Reading Skills and Language Behavior in Early Childhood."
Paper presented to the International Reading Association, Boston. 1968.
Stevens, R. The Question as a Measure of Efficiency in instruction: A Critical
Study of Classroom Practice." Teachers College Contributions to Education 48
(1912).
Stewart. L. G., and White, M. A, 'Teacher Comments, Letter Grades, and Stu-
dent PerforMance: What Do We Really Know?" Journal of Educational Psychology
68 1976): 488-500.
Sturges. P. T. "Effects of Instruction and Form of Informative Feedback on
Retention of Meaningful Material. Journal of Educational Psychology 63 (1972b):
99-102.
Sturges. P. T. "Information Delay and Retention: Effect of Information in I-eed-
back and Tests." Journal of Educati.-mal Psychology 63 (1972a): 32-43.
Sturges. P. T. "Verbal Retention as a Function of the Informativeness and Delay
of informative Feedback" Journal of Educational Psychology 60 (1969): 11-14.
Surber, 1. R., and Anderson. R. C. -Delay-Retention Effect in Natural Class-
room Settings." Journal of Educational Psychology 67 (1975) : 170-173.
Sweet, R. C. Edurathmal Attainment and Attitudes Toward School as a Function
of Feedback in the Form of Teachers' Written Comments. Madison. Wisc.: University
of Wisconsin. 1966. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No ED 015 163.)
Taba. H.: Levine. S.: and Elzey, F. F. Thinking in Elementary School Children.
San Francisco: State College, 1964.
Tenenhaum. A. B. "Task-Dependent Effects of Organization and Context Upon
Comprehension of Prose." Journal of _Educational Psychology 69 (1977) : 528-536,
Tenenhere, M. S. "Effects of Different Study Instructions on Learning from
Written Materials." Ph.D. dissertation. University of California at Berkeley, 1969.
 REFERENCES 99

Thorndike, E. L. Thiman Learning. New York: Century. 1931.

Tinsley. D. C.; Watson. E. P.: and Ntarshall. J. C. -Cognitive °hick:1i s Re-
vealed by Classroom Questions till Piocess-Oi wined Ana 1. omes.t-oliente,1 Secondai
Social Studies Programs." Paper presented at the .Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Associ.ttion, Minneapolis, 1970.
Traub, R. E. -Importance of Problem Heterogeneity to Programmed Instruc-
tion." Journal of Educational Psychology 57 (1966): 54-60.
Travers, R. M. W., ed. Second Handbook of Research on Teaching. Chicago:
Rand McNally, 1973.
Travers. R. M. W.; Van Wagenen. R. K.: Haygood. D. H.: and McCormick. M.
"Learning as a Consequence of the Learner's Task Involvement Under Different
Conditions of Feedback." Journal of Educational Psychology 55 ( 1964).
Tulving, E. 'Cue-Dependent Forgetting.- American Scientist 62 (1974): 74-82.
Turnure. J. E.. and Samuels. S. 3.Auention and Readine Achiet-ement in First
Grade Boys and Girls. Research Report -No. 43. St. P:iul, Minn.: University of N1in-
nesota Research Development and Demonstration Center in Education of Hiindi-
capped Children, 1972.
Tyler. R. W. Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press. 1949.
Van Wagenen. R. K., and Travers, R. N1. W. "Learning Under Conditions of
Direct and Vicarious Reinforcement.- Journal (if Educational Psychology 54 1963):
356-362.
Vohs. J. L. An Empirical Approach to the Concept of Attention." Speech
Monographs 31 (1964) 355-360.
Walker. H. M.: Mattson. R. H.: and Buckley. N. K. 'Special Class Placement as
a Treatment Alternative for Deviant Behavior in Children.' In .11(41/tying IhTiant
Social Behaviors in Various Classroom Settings. Edited by F. A. !..1. Benson. Mono-
graph No. ie Eugene. Ore.: University of Oregon, Department of Special Education,
1969.
Watts, G. H.. and .Anderson, R. C. "Effects of Three Types of Inserted Questions
on Learning from Written ,Materials."' Journal of Educational Pischology 62 (1971) :
387-394.
Wending. T. L. "Mastery Versus Nonmastery instruction with Varying Test
Item Feedback Treatments." Journal of Educational Pcschology 65 (1973): 50.58,
Wesley, F. 'Silents. Please.- Audio -1 Ind Commanications Review 10 (1962):
102-105.
Wheeler, R_ and Ryan. F. "Effects of Cooperative and Competitive Classroom
Environments on the Attitudes and Achievement of Elementary School Students
Engaged in Social Studies Inquiry Activities." Journal of Educatimial Psychology
65 (1973) : 402-407.
Williams. R. L. "Relationship of Class Participation to persomility. ,Nhility,
Achievement Variables." Journal of Social Psychology $3 (1971): 193-198.
Wilson, J. H. 'The New Science Teachers are Asking More and Better Ques-
tions." /plum,/ of Research in Science Teaching 6 1969): 303*-308,
Wittrock, M. C. The Evaluation of Instruction: Cause-ill-id-Effect Relations in
Naturalistic Data." In The Evaluation of Instruction: Issues and Problems. Edited
by M. C. Wittrock and D. E. Wiley_. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.,
1970.
Wright, C. L. and Nuthall. G. "Relationships Between Teacher Behaviors and
Pupil Achievement in Three Elementary Science Lessons." American Eduatimuzl
Research Journal 7 (1970): 477-493.
Yoloye, A. E. "Ohservationid Techniques." in Handbook of Curricula Evalna-
atilt Edited by A. Lewy. New York: Longman. Inc, 1977.
ZAhorik. J. A. "Classroom Feedback Behavior of Teachers." The Journal of
Educational Research 62 (1968): 147-150.
100 EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION

Zeaman, D.. and House, R. J. "The Relation of IQ and Learning." In teaming

and Individual Differeru-es Edited by R Ci.o2ne. Columbus, Oh.: C.E. Merrill Books.
1967.
Zeamam D. and House, H. J. -The Role of Attention in Retardate Discrimina-
tion Learning." In Ilandhtiok ol Mcnial Cleric liviev. Edited by N. R. Ellis. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1963,
About the Authors
TAMAR LEVIN is on the faculty of the School of Education, Tel Aviv Uni-
versity, Tel Aviv, Israel.
R rt-t LONG is Associate Director for the Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development, AleNindrki,
 ASC E) Publications, Spring 1981
Yearbooks Middle School in the Making
A New Look at Progressive Education (611-74024) $5.00
(610-17812) $8.00 The Middle School We Need
Considered Action for Curriculum Improvement (611 = 75060) $2.50
(610-30186) $9.75 Toward Solt-Directea Learning
Education for an Open Society (511-79166) $4.75
(610 = 74012) $8.00 Multicultural Education: Commitments, issues,
Evaluation as Feedback and Guide and Applications (611-77108) $7.00
(810-17700) $6,50 Needs Assessment: A Focus for Curriculum
Feeling. Valuing, and the Art of Growing: Development (611-75048) $4,00
Insights into the Affective Observational Methods in the Classroom
(610-77104) $9.75 (611-17948) $3.50
Life Skills in School and Society Open Liducatioil: Critique and Assessment
(610 =17786) $5,50 (611-75054) $4.75
Lifelong Learning= A Human Agenda Partners: Parents and Schools
(610-79160) 59.75 (611-79168) $4,75
Perceiving, Behaving, Becoming: A New Focus Professional Supervision for Professional
for Education (610-17278) 35.00 Teachers (611 =75046) 54,50
Perspectives on Curriculum Development Reschoolinp Society: A Conceptual Model
1776-1976 (610-76078) $9,50 (611-17950) $2,00
Schools in Search of Meaning The School of the Future-NOW
(610-75044) $8.50 (611-17920) 33.75
Staff DevelopmenrOrganization Development Schools Become Accountable: A PACT
(61U-81232) $9.75 Approach (611= 74016) $3.50
The School's Role as Moral Authority
(611=77110) $4.50
Books and Booklets Selecting Learning Experiences: Linking
About Learning Materials (611-7813i) $4,50 Theory and Practice (611-78138) $4.75
Action Learning: Student Community Service Social Studies for the Evolving Individual
Projects (611-74018) $2.50 (611-17952) 33.00
Adventuring, Mastering, Associating: New Staff Development: Staff Liberation
Strategies for Teaching Children (611-77106) $6.50
(611-76080) 35.00 Supervision: Emerging Profession
Approaches to individualized Education (611-17796) 85.00
(611-80204) $4.75 Supervision in a New Key (611-17926) $2.50
Bilingual Education for Latinos urban Education: The City as a Living
(611-78142) $6.75 Curriculum (611-80206) $6.50
Classroom-Relevant Research in the Language What Are the Sources of the Curriculum?
Arts (611-78140) 37.50 (611-17522) $1.50
Clinical Supervision-A State of the An Review Vitalizing the High School (61 l-74026) $R50
(611-80194) $3.75 Developmental Characteristics of Children and
Curricular Concerns in a Revolutionary Era Youth (wall chart) (611 = 75058) $2.00
(611-17852) $6.00
Curriculum Leaders: Improving Their Influence Discounts on quantity orders of same title to
(611-76084) $4.00
Curriculum Materials 1980 (611-80198) 33.00 single address: 10-49 copies, 10%; 50 or more
Curriculum Theory (611-77112) 37.00 copies, 15%. Make checks or money orders
Degrading he Grading Myths: A Primer of payable to ASCD. Orders totaling $20.00 or
Alternatives to Grades and Marks less must be prepaid. Orders from Institutions-
(611-76082) $6.00 and businesses must be on official purchase
Educating English-Speaking Hispanics order form. Shipping and handling charges will
(611-80202) 36,50 be added to billed purchase orders. Please be
Elementary School Mathematics: A Guide to sure to list the stock number 01 each publica-
Current Research (611-75056) 55,00 tion, shown in parentheses.
Eliminating Ethnic Bias in Instructional Subscription to Educational Leadership= 318.00
Materials! Comment and Bibliography a year. ASCD Membership dues: Regular (sub-
(611-74020) $3_25 scription [$18] and yearbook)-$34.00 a year;
Global Studies: Problems and Promises for Comprehensive (includes subscription [$18]
Elementary Teachers (611-76086) $4.50 and yearbook plus other books and booklets
Handbook of Basic Citizenship Competencies distributed during period of membership)-
(611.80196) $4.75 $44.00 a year.
Humanistic Education: Objectives and
Assessment (611-78136) 34.75 Order from:
Learning More About Learning Association for Supervision and
(611.17310) $2.00 Curriculum Development
Measuring and Attaining the Goals of Education 225 North Washington Street
(811-80210) $6.50 Alexandria, Virginia 22314