The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of behavioral objectives on learning of unstructured materials versus structured materials when the students have been trained in how to use those objectives as a guide to learning. The subjects were 108 undergraduate students enrolled in Educational Psychology courses at Florida State University. These subjects were divided into four groups. Group 1 received the objectives plus the structured materials. Group 2 received the objectives plus the unstructured materials. Group 3 received the structured materials only. Group 4 received the unstructured materials only. All those students who received the objectives, received also a programmed training lesson on how to use the objectives for studying. The structured material consisted in a printed programmed lesson on Mental Retardation and the unstructured material consisted in portions of texts used as content sources for the design of the structured lesson. After working on the instructional materials, the students' learning was assessed by a posttest. An analysis of covariance, with the GPA serving as the covariate, showed no significant interaction between behavioral objectives and instruction. There was a significant difference attributed to the effect of structured materials over unstructured materials. Also, effect of having behavioral objectives was significant for the unstructured materials groups. However, there was no significant difference between objectives and no objectives groups working with structured materials. / In general, the structured material was superior to the unstructured material. For those students working with the structured lesson, the objectives were superfluous information as compared with the no objectives students with the same material. However, those students working with the unstructured material, obtained higher scores than those students who did not receive the objectives. There was no significant interaction between treatments. / Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 46-04, Section: A, page: 0930. / Thesis (Ph.D.)--The Florida State University, 1984.

This study investigated the effects on comprehension of (a) two different reading treatments (text provided summary and learner generated summary), (b) two different cognitive styles (field independent and field dependent) and, (c) two levels of the post-hoc variable summary quality (subject generated good summaries and poor summaries) The study also investigated the interaction between (a) the reading treatment variable and the cognitive style variable, and (b) the summary quality variable and the cognitive style variable. / The subjects were 79 undergraduates at Florida State University who were blocked on the field independence-dependence trait, randomly assigned to the four treatment conditions, and administered a 26 item comprehension test. / The analysis of the data indicated no significant main effects for (a) text provided summary versus learner generated summary, and (b) field independents versus field dependents. Nor did the analysis of the data indicate a significant interaction between (a) the reading treatment and cognitive style variables, or (b) the summary quality and cognitive style variables. However, the analysis of the data did indicate a significant main effect for (a) the good summarizers versus the poor summarizers, (b) the good summarizers versus subjects in the text provided group, and (c) the poor summarizers versus the subjects in the text provided group. / Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 50-05, Section: A, page: 1258. / Major Professor: John Keller. / Thesis (Ph.D.)--The Florida State University, 1989.

The purpose of this study was to examine Battig's (1979) claim that CI may be produced by an interfering task similar or dissimilar to the to-be-learned task(s). In Battig's view, this interference would depress acquisition performance, yet facilitate retention/transfer. While all the studies that have been conducted to examine the CI phenomenon in the motor domain have manipulated the order of practice (blocked vs. random practice), this study not only manipulated the order of practice to promote CI, but also manipulated the interfering activity between trials (counting backward by threes from a given number). / A total of 72 right-handed female students enrolled in introductory psychology classes at FSU participated in this study. They were randomly assigned to four groups (random or blocked x counting or non-counting). The task consisted of learning three similar movement patterns which differed in level of difficulty. The goal of the tasks was to release the starting key, knock down the required gates, and to press the stop key as quickly as possible. / The experiment consisted of four phases: (a) the preliminary phase, (b) the acquisition phase, (c) the interpolation phase, and (d) the retention phase. Two dependent measures, RT and MT, were computed for each subject and for each group. / The results partially supported Battig's (1979) claim that CI may be produced by an interfering task that is similar or dissimilar to the to-be-learned task(s). The results revealed that counting, as an interfering task, has a minimal inhibitory or facilitatory effect on acquisition and retention. However, practice schedule was the main effect of promoting CI. Random practice was shown to depress acquisition, yet facilitate retention. The results of this study are discussed with relation to the level of processing explanation of the CI phenomenon. / Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 49-08, Section: A, page: 2160. / Major Professor: Tonya Toole. / Thesis (Ph.D.)--The Florida State University, 1988.

Two investigations were conducted to explore the information processing activities of college students in an effort to identify those study activities which are most likely to result in academic success. Experiment 1 examined the relationship between course achievement among pre med students and dimensions of learning style assessed by the Inventory of Learning Processes (ILP). Correlational findings revealed that several of the ILP scales were better predictors of success than either GPA or scores on the Medical College Admissions Test (MCAT); however Regression analyses failed to establish conclusively whether ILP scales explain any unique variability in course achievement. Post hoc analyses revealed that a composite score representing all four ILP scales was a better predictor of course performance than any single ILP scale. Results generally supported the validity of the learning processes assessed by the ILP. Implications for the optimal content of study skill training programs are presented. / Experiment 2, combined the manipulation of visualization as an encoding strategy with an assessment of naturally occurring variation in the predisposition to employ this kind of strategy. Separate groups of undergraduates who did not expect a memory test were instructed to generate different levels of verbal and visual cues in response to each item presented from a word list; additionally, to provide a measure of learning style reflecting consistent use of strategies akin to visualization, subjects completed the Elaborative Processing scale of the ILP. Findings revealed a significant main effect for the encoding manipulation and the elaborative processing assessment. Results suggest (1) visualization is a powerful encoding device, (2) visualization can be manipulated by instructional treatments, (3) there are measurable differences in the natural predisposition to use this kind of strategy, and (4) the Elaborative Processing scale is a valid technique for assessing these individual differences. Implications for effective notetaking are discussed. / Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 50-06, Section: A, page: 1611. / Major Professor: Marcy Driscoll. / Thesis (Ph.D.)--The Florida State University, 1989.

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 40-06, Section: A, page: 3207. / Thesis (Ph.D.)--The Florida State University, 1979.

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 40-06, Section: A, page: 3202. / Thesis (Ph.D.)--The Florida State University, 1979.

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 32-11, Section: A, page: 6214. / Thesis (Ph.D.)--The Florida State University, 1971.

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 33-02, Section: A, page: 0625. / Thesis (Ph.D.)--The Florida State University, 1972.

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 32-11, Section: A, page: 6228. / Thesis (Ph.D.)--The Florida State University, 1971.

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 35-07, Section: A, page: 4254. / Thesis (Ph.D.)--The Florida State University, 1974.