Experimental Factors Related to Aptitude-Treatment Interactions

Bloom (1968), Cronbach (1957, 1967), Gagne (1967), Glaser (1967), Jensen (1967, 1968) and other educational psychologists have suggested that no single instructional process provides optimal learning for all students. Given a common set of objectives, some students will be more successful with one instructional program and other students will be more successful with an alternative instructional program. Consequently, a greater proportion of students will attain the instructional objectives when instruction is differentiated for different types of students. Glaser (1967) and others pointed out that psychologists have been too optimistic in their expectations of formulating general laws of learning and have not given sufficient attention to individual differences. In his APA presidential address, Cronbach (1957) encouraged psychologists in the experimental and correlational disciplines to combine their interests and methods to observe experimental effects for subjects of different characteristics and to conduct investigations to find aptitude-treatment interactions (ATIs). The goal of research on ATI is to find significant disordinal interactions between alternative treatments and personological variables, i.e., to develop alternative instructional programs so that optimal educational payoff is obtained when students are assigned differently to the alternative programs. The personological variable in ATI research is defined as any measure of individual characteristics, e.g., IQ, scientific interest, or anxiety. Although there is an increasing interest in the topic of ATI among educational psychologists, very little empirical evidence has been provided to support the concept. So few experiments have shown a significant educational payoff when students were given differential instruction that Gage and Unruh (1967, p. 368) were led to ask:

[1]  H. Walberg.  A Model for Research on Instruction , 1970, The School Review.

[2]  H. Marshall.  Learning as a Function of Task Interest, Reinforcement, and Social Class Variables. , 1969 .

[3]  M. Glock,et al.  Learner characteristics and instructional mode: a search for disordinal interactions. , 1969, Journal of educational psychology.

[4]  Wayne L. Herman,et al.  The Relationship of Teacher-Centered Activities and Pupil-Centered Activities to Pupil Achievement and Interest in 18 Fifth-Grade Social Studies Classes1 , 1969 .

[5]  Jeff A. Pyatte.  Some Effects of Unit Structure on Achievement and Transfer1 , 1969 .

[6]  M. L. Koran.  The Effects of Individual Differences on Observational Learning in the Acquisition of a Teaching Skill. , 1969 .

[7]  E. Lemke.  Effects of Degree of Initial Acquisition, Group Size, and General Mental Ability on Concept Learning and Transfer. , 1969 .

[8]  G. Nuthall.  An Experimental Comparison of Alternative Strategies for Teaching Concepts1 , 1968 .

[9]  M. Showel.  DEVELOPMENT OF TWO AUTOMATED PROGRAMS FOR TEACHING MILITARY JUSTICE TO MEN OF VARIOUS APTITUDE LEVELS. , 1968 .

[10]  P. Campeau.  Test anxiety and feedback in programmed instruction. , 1968, Journal of Educational Psychology.

[11]  Certain effects of the expectation to transmit on concept attainment. , 1968, Journal of educational psychology.

[12]  G. Kasten Tallmadge,et al.  Study of Training Equipment and Individual Differences: The Effects of Subject Matter Variables. Report and Supplementary Report. , 1968 .

[13]  A Study and Comparison of Experimenter Pacing and Student Pacing of Programed Instruction , 1968 .

[14]  J. Rapier.  Learning abilities of normal and retarded children as a function of social class. , 1968, Journal of educational psychology.

[15]  J. Shaver,et al.  The Effect of Student Characteristic-Teaching Method Interactions on Learning to Think Critically. , 1968 .

[16]  D. M. Cook,et al.  Effect of Three Methods of Instruction upon the Handwriting Performance of Third and Fourth Graders1 , 1968 .

[17]  A. Jensen,et al.  Social Class, Race, and Genetics: Implications for Education1 , 1968 .

[18]  Relationships between training methods and learner characteristics. , 1968, Journal of educational psychology.

[19]  S. Samuels,et al.  Attentional process in reading: the effect of pictures on the acquisition of reading responses. , 1967, Journal of educational psychology.

[20]  Acquisition and retention of discrimination learning sets in lower-class preschool children. , 1967, Journal of educational psychology.

[21]  C. Stern.  Acquisition of problem-solving strategies in young children and its relation to verbalization. , 1967, Journal of educational psychology.

[22]  N. Gage,et al.  Theoretical Formulations for Research on Teaching , 1967 .

[23]  P. Buckland.  THE RESPONSE IN A LINEAR PROGRAM: ITS MODE AND IMPORTANCE , 1967 .

[24]  E. Keislar,et al.  Acquisition of Problem Solving Strategies by Young Children, And Its Relation to Mental Age , 1967 .

[25]  R. Karraker.  Knowledge of results and incorrect recall of plausible multiple-choice alternatives. , 1967 .

[26]  Gerard C. Kress,et al.  A Comparison of Two Strategies for Individualizing Fixed-Paced Programed Instruction1 , 1966 .

[27]  Lawrence M. Stolurow,et al.  Hierarchical Preview VS Problem Oriented Review in Learning an Imaginary Science1 , 1966 .

[28]  W. F. White,et al.  Generalized effects of praise and reproof. , 1966, Journal of educational psychology.

[29]  A. Lott,et al.  Group cohesiveness and individual learning. , 1966, Journal of educational psychology.

[30]  R. Traub.  Importance of problem heterogeneity to programed instruction. , 1966 .

[31]  R. Gagne.  INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN LEARNING FROM VISUAL AND VERBAL PRESENTATIONS AND THE USE OF VISUAL EXAMPLES IN REVIEW. , 1965 .

[32]  R. A. Rosemier.  Effectiveness of forewarning about errors in response-selective learning. , 1965, Journal of educational psychology.

[33]  S. Lublin,et al.  Reinforcement schedules, scholastic aptitude, autonomy need, and achievement in a programed course. , 1965, Journal of educational psychology.

[34]  W F Seibert,et al.  Individual differences and instructional film effects. , 1965, Journal of Educational Psychology.

[35]  K. Hopkins,et al.  An Empirical Comparison of Pupil Achievement and Other Variables in Graded and Ungraded Classes , 1965 .

[36]  J. Krumboltz,et al.  The Comparative Effects of Inductive and Deductive Sequences in Programed Instruction* , 1965 .

[37]  J. Hartley.  Linear and skip-branching programmes: a comparison study. , 1965, The British journal of educational psychology.

[38]  J. Sassenrath,et al.  Effects of differential feedback from examinations on retention and transfer. , 1965, Journal of educational psychology.

[39]  J P WILLIAMS,et al.  EFFECTIVENESS OF CONSTRUCTED-RESPONSE AND MULTIPLE-CHOICE PROGRAMING MODES AS A FUNCTION OF TEST MODE. , 1965, Journal of educational psychology.

[40]  LEARNING BY PROGRAMED AND TEXT FORMAT AT THREE LEVELS OF DIFFICULTY. , 1965, Journal of educational psychology.

[41]  L. Siegel,et al.  EDUCATIONAL SET: A DETERMINANT OF ACQUISITION. , 1965, Journal of educational psychology.

[42]  W. Bush,et al.  Some interactions between individual differences and modes of instruction. AMRL-TR-65-228. , 1965, AMRL-TR. Aerospace Medical Research Laboratories.

[43]  K. Orton,et al.  The Effect of Method of Instruction on Retention and Transfer for Different Levels of Ability , 1964, The School Review.

[44]  Milton Budoff,et al.  Reading progress as related to efficiency of visual and aural learning in the primary grades. , 1964 .

[45]  Richard F. Potthoff,et al.  On the Johnson-Neyman technique and some extensions thereof , 1964 .

[46]  W. H. Ashbaugh.  Effect on Achievement of Written Responses to Programmed Learning Material for Students of Differing Academic Ability , 1964 .

[47]  Hani Van de Riet.  Effects of praise and reproof on paired-associate learning in educationally retarded children. , 1964 .

[48]  W. H. Lucow.  An Experiment with the Cuisenaire Method in Grade Three , 1964 .

[49]  R. S. Barrett,et al.  Comparison of programed and conventional instruction methods. , 1964 .

[50]  Robert E. Davidson,et al.  Mediation and ability in paired-associate learning. , 1964 .

[51]  Set to Learn and Proactive Inhibition , 1963 .

[52]  H. G. Osburn,et al.  Prediction of Proficiency in a Modern and Traditional Course in Beginning Algebra , 1963 .

[53]  Bypassing as a way of adapting self-instruction programs to individual differences. , 1963 .

[54]  M. Wittrock.  Response mode in the programing of kinetic molecular theory concepts. , 1963 .

[55]  Richard F. Potthoff,et al.  On the Johnson-:neyman Technique and Some Extensions Thereof , 1963 .

[56]  Harry Silberman.  DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF SELF-INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS FOR UNDERACHIEVING AND OVERACHIEVING STUDENTS. , 1962 .

[57]  Donald M. Miller,et al.  Experimental Folklore and Experimentation: The Study of Programmed Learning in the Wauwatosa Public Schools* , 1962 .

[58]  J. Hayman,et al.  An Experiment Involving Use of English 2600, An Automated Instruction Text , 1962 .

[59]  A Comparison of Three Modes of Presenting A Programmed Instruction Sequence , 1962 .

[60]  S. Osler,et al.  Concept attainment: II. Effect of stimulus complexity upon concept attainment at two levels of intelligence. , 1961, Journal of experimental psychology.

[61]  Willis E. Ray.  Pupil Discovery vs. Direct Instruction , 1961 .

[62]  A. Lubin.  The Interpretation of Significant Interaction , 1961 .

[63]  Carleton B. Shap.  Relationship of intelligence to step size on a teaching machine program. , 1961 .

[64]  Edmund Amidon,et al.  The effects of direct and indirect teacher influence on dependent-prone students learning geometry. , 1961 .

[65]  J. N. Jacobs,et al.  An experimental study in teaching high school biology by television in the Cincinnati public schools , 1959 .

[66]  Palmer O. Johnson,et al.  Modern statistical methods : descriptive and inductive , 1959 .

[67]  J. N. Jacobs,et al.  An Experimental Study of the Effectiveness of Television Versus Classroom Instruction in Sixth Grade Science in the Cincinnati Public Schools, 1956-1957 , 1959 .

[68]  L. Cronbach.  The two disciplines of scientific psychology. , 1957 .

[69]  A. Calvin,et al.  The Effect of Intelligence and Social Atmosphere on Group Problem Solving Behavior , 1957 .

[70]  W. Reitman,et al.  Performance as a function of motive strength and expectancy of goal-attainment. , 1956, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[71]  John N. Ward.  Group-Study Versus Lecture-Demonstration Method in Physical Science Instruction for General Education College Students , 1956 .

[72]  R. E. Mills.  An Evaluation of Techniques for Teaching Word Recognition , 1956, The Elementary School Journal.

[73]  Donald E. Smith,et al.  Reading improvement as a function of student personality and teaching method. , 1956 .

[74]  R. Abelson.  A note on the Neyman-Johnson technique , 1953 .

[75]  L. Wispé.  Evaluating Section Teaching Methods in the Introductory Course , 1951 .

[76]  A. A. Lumsdaine,et al.  Experiments On Mass Communication , 1949 .

[77]  G. Thompson,et al.  The effect of repeated praise or blame on the work achievement of 'introverts' and 'extroverts.' , 1944 .

[78]  J. Neyman,et al.  Tests of certain linear hypotheses and their application to some educational problems. , 1936 .

[79]  John B. Carroll Donald Spearritt.  Monograph Number 4 A STUDY OF A " MODEL OF SCHOOL LEARNING " , 2022 .