This study investigated the effects of two alternate sets of conditions of learning on state-anxiety and rule learning in a systematically designed instructional unit. Normally, systematically designed instruction (control group) presents objectives to the learners and requires written (overt) responses to practice questions. / In the "specially designed" instructional materials of the experimental group, there were no objectives or overt responding. Rather, learners were asked to just "think" (covert) their answers to the same practice questions that were responded to overtly by the control group. / There were 92 female undergraduates randomly assigned to treatment groups. Forty-nine participants were assigned to the "special" instructional group and 43 participants were assigned to the "normal" instructional group. / The participants' A-State levels were measured before (A(,1)), during (A(,2)), and after (A(,3)) the instructional treatment. These repeated A-State measures were used to assess initial A-State (A(,1)) and changes in A-State as a function of instructional treatment (A(,2) and A(,3)). Following the instructional treatment and A-State measures participants received an objective-referenced posttest to assess the quality of their rule-using learning. / The resulting data were analyzed using multiple regression analysis to determine if there were significant main effects or interaction effects. Measures of prior knowledge, instructional time, and pre-instructional A-State (A(,1)) were used as covariates in this analysis. / The results of the analysis indicated no interactions between instructional treatments and A-State levels. There were no significant predictors for posttest performance. Pre-instructional A-State (A(,1)) and instructional treatment were significant predictors of A(,2) (during instruction A-State). Contrary to prediction, participants in the "normal" instructional treatment reported lower levels of A(,2). Instructional treatment and A(,1) were significant predictors of the after instruction (A(,3)) measure of A-State. / Methodological weaknesses and inappropriate instruction possibly prevented the predicted results. These deficiencies were detailed in Chapter IV. / Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 44-02, Section: A, page: 0376. / Thesis (Ph.D.)--The Florida State University, 1983.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:fsu.edu/oai:fsu.digital.flvc.org:fsu_77777 |
| Contributors | QUESADA, SANDRA., Florida State University |
| Source Sets | Florida State University |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Text |
| Format | 161 p. |
| Rights | On campus use only. |
| Relation | Dissertation Abstracts International |
Page generated in 0.0021 seconds