The adequacy of using a posttesting method of learning hierarchy validation was investigated. Validation decisions based upon posttest data were compared to the decisions generated from validation with instruction. Five learning hierarchies were employed in the study from the areas of mathematics, science, and social studies. Data were obtained from students in grades ranging from 2 through 10, with 30 to 70 students for each hierarchy and validation method. Student mastery data were summarized to indicate acceptance or rejection of each hypothesized hierarchical pair. / Decision correlations and overall comparisons were analyzed based upon the percentage of participants failing the lower skill and passing the higher skill of each hypothesized element pair. Using a practical criterion of (GREATERTHEQ) 10% in the fail-pass category indicating rejection of the hypothesized element pair, the posttest-only method and the instruction-test method were in agreement on 27 of 34 decisions. When non-significant percentages were removed, the two methods were in agreement on 30 of 34 decisions. The phi correlation coefficient for decisions of the two methods was 0.70 (p < .01). An examination of the percentage fail-pass data utilizing the Wilcoxon Signed-Ranks Test for Matched-Pairs further indicated no significant difference between the two methods (p < .01). / The results provide support for using the posttesting method as a short-cut approximation to validation with instruction. In the context of validation decisions made during the development of instructional materials, the posttesting approach appears to be adequate. The results also suggest that retention hierarchies produced by the posttesting method appear to be the same as learning hierarchies. The apparent adequacy of the posttesting method offers many advantages to the instructional developer. Instructional materials need not be developed prior to hierarchy validation, allowing the validated hierarchy to guide the development of instructional sequences and test specifications. / Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 46-01, Section: A, page: 0131. / Thesis (Ph.D.)--The Florida State University, 1984.

A study was conducted to determine the effect of various episode-forming instructional activities on verbal information and attitude learning. Episodes were structured to incorporate selected instructional events. An attention episode used prequestions in a game-format; an integration episode provided learning guidance in the form of activities to reinforce the content and links among memory structures; an evaluation episode used student values discussions to provide learning guidance for the attitude learning. There were two primary hypotheses: (1) the integration episode would be associated with higher immediate- and long-term retention of verbal information, particularly for below-average ability students; (2) higher positive attitudes toward the program content would be associated with the evaluation episode treatment. / Verbal information results indicated the presence of an aptitude-treatment interaction (ATI) such that for below- and average-ability students the attention episode was associated with higher performance than the other groups; for above-average students there was no treatment effect. Attitude results indicated no significant treatment effects. / The results suggest that, for verbal information learning, a high degree of correspondence between the information presented during the episode-forming activity and that presented when the propositions are being formed may be more important than the actual structure of the activity. For attitude outcomes, student discussions may not be necessary to promote attitude formation or change; a clear presentation of information by a role model may be adequate. / Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 46-04, Section: A, page: 0954. / Thesis (Ph.D.)--The Florida State University, 1985.

The determination of a facilitative effect of feedback on student achievement has been extensively researched. Usually not discriminated are the intellectual skill of rule using and verbal information. Only a few feedback studies have been conducted in a computer based instruction (CBI) setting. Anticipated in this study, conducted in a CBI setting, was that feedback for a rule using task (an intellectual skill) should be more complex than feedback for learning verbal information, because of the different types of learning involved. A feedback strategy that emphasized the rule and not the example was used to test this idea. / Ninety one high school students from the Florida State Developmental Research School, enrolled in Algebra I and II classes, were used in the study. The students were blocked on math ability and then randomly assigned to one of three feedback groups. All students received the same learning material except for different feedback. Group 1, the control group, received "right/wrong" feedback only. Group 2 received "right/wrong" plus if an error was made the "correct answer" (emphasizing the example). Group 3 received "right/wrong" plus if an error was made the "rule restated and the correct answer" (emphasizing the rule, not the example). Students were tested immediately after the lesson (acquisition measure), and one week later (retention measure). / A three factor mixed ANOVA with one repeated measure was used to analyze the performance results. The results yielded no significant main effects in the feedback treatment. Significant main effects were noted, however, between ability levels in favor of high ability students. A first level interaction between ability level and test time was also noted. / Although the null hypothesis was not rejected, the differences in the domains of verbal information and intellectual skills are so great that further research is needed to assess the role of feedback in rule learning. / Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 46-04, Section: A, page: 0955. / Thesis (Ph.D.)--The Florida State University, 1985.

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 37-10, Section: A, page: 6224. / Thesis (Ph.D.)--The Florida State University, 1976.

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 37-12, Section: A, page: 7483. / Thesis (Ph.D.)--The Florida State University, 1976.

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 37-12, Section: B, page: 6295. / Thesis (Ph.D.)--The Florida State University, 1976.

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 38-05, Section: A, page: 2497. / Thesis (Ph.D.)--The Florida State University, 1977.

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 38-11, Section: A, page: 6479. / Thesis (Ph.D.)--The Florida State University, 1977.

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 38-04, Section: B, page: 1853. / Thesis (Ph.D.)--The Florida State University, 1976.

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 39-11, Section: A, page: 6475. / Thesis (Ph.D.)--The Florida State University, 1978.