The Effects of Three Instructional Strategies on the Food Group Labeling Responses in Preschool Children

Transcription

1 Western Michigan University ScholarWorks at WMU Master's Theses Graduate College The Effects of Three Instructional Strategies on the Food Group Labeling Responses in Preschool Children Jon Jeffery Boes Western Michigan University Follow this and additional works at: Part of the Psychology Commons Recommended Citation Boes, Jon Jeffery, "The Effects of Three Instructional Strategies on the Food Group Labeling Responses in Preschool Children" (1982). Master's Theses This Masters Thesis-Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate College at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact

2 THE EFFECTS OF THREE INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES ON THE FOOD GROUP LABELING RESPONSES IN PRESCHOOL CHILDREN by Jon J e ffe ry Boes A P ro je c t R eport Subm itted to th e ' F acu lty o f The G raduate C ollege in p a r t i a l f u lf illm e n t of th e requirem ents f o r th e Degree o f S p e c ia lis t i n Education D epartm ent o f Psychology W estern M ichigan U n iv e rsity Kalamazoo, M ichigan August 1982

3 THE EFFECTS OF THREE INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES ON THE FOOD GROUP LABELING RESPONSES IN PRESCHOOL CHILDREN Jon J e ffe ry Boes, Ed.S. W estern M ichigan U n iv e rsity, 1982 T his study compared th re e D ire c t I n s tr u c tio n procedures f o r teach ing th e la b e lin g of food in term s o f th e f iv e b a s ic food groups ( f r u i t s, v e g e ta b le s, m eats, g ra in s, and d a iry p ro d u c ts ). E ighteen p re sc h o o le rs served a s s u b je c ts. They w ere randomly assig n ed to th re e experim en tal groups and a c o n tro l group. The ex p erim en tal group was a ssig n e d to one of th e fo llo w in g in s tr u c tio n a l p ro ced u res: (1) G enerative I, (2) G en erativ e I I, (3) G enerative I I I. The s e ts of e x e rc is e s in th e p ro ced u res were ta u g h t a s one tr a c k in a D ire c t In s tru c tio n program d esig n ed to te a c h n u tr i tio n knowledge. A ll o th e r e x e rc is e s in th e program w ere id e n tic a l f o r th e th re e ex p erim en tal groups. The r e s u lts in d ic a te d th a t a l l th re e procedures ta u g h t th e s u b je c ts to a c c u ra te ly la b e l th e food groups in tro d u ced. However, th e G enerative I I I p ro ced u re ta u g h t th e la b e lin g resp o n ses in a s h o r te r p erio d of tim e. The c o n tro l group showed no g a in s. The r e s u lts suggest th a t g e n e ra tiv e p rocedures may be u s e fu l in te ach in g la rg e noun c la s s e s c o n ta in in g members sh a rin g few v is u a l fe a tu re s.

4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would l i k e to acknowledge th e guidance, e x p e r tis e, and a s s i s ta n c e of M ichael F. M asters d u rin g th e c o n s tru c tio n, im plem entation, and w rite -u p of th i s p r o je c t. W ithout h is h e lp, t h i s p ro je c t would n o t e x is t In th e form i t i s now. In a d d itio n, I would lik e to thank D r. Galen A le s s i fo r se rv in g a s th e overwhelming so u rce f o r my r e p e r to ir e in sch o o l psychology. D r. A le s s i was a ls o v ery in stru m e n ta l in th e f i n a l product of t h i s p r o je c t. I s in c e re ly thank you both! Jon J e ffe ry Boes i i

5 INFORMATION TO USERS This reproduction was made from a copy o f a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this document, th e quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality o f the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify markings or notations which m ay appear on this reproduction. 1.The sign or target for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is Missing Page(s). If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an indication o f either blurred copy because o f movement during exposure, duplicate copy, or copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed. For blurred pages, a good image o f the page can be found in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted, a target note will appear listing the pages in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photographed, a definite method o f sectioning the material has been followed. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer o f a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For illustrations that cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic means, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted into your xerographic copy. These prints are available upon request from the Dissertations Customer Services Department. 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases the best available copy has been filmed. University Mfcrtirilms International 300 N. Z eeb Road Ann Arbor, Ml 48106

6

7 BOES, JON JEFFERY THE EFFECTS OF THREE INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES O N THE FOOD GROUP LABELING RESPONSES IN PRESCHOOL CHILDREN W E S T E R N MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY ED.S University Microfilms International 300 N.Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106

8

9 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.... i i LIST OF F IG U R E S iv LIST OF TABLES... v C hapters I. INTRODUCTION... 1 I I. METHOD... 9 S u b j e c t s S e t t i n g M a t e r i a l s S ta f f I n s t r u c t o r s Dependent V a r i a b l e s Independent V a r ia b le s I n s tr u c tio n a l P ro ced u re R e l i a b i l i t y I I I. RESULTS IV. D I S C U S S I O N BIBLIOGRAPHY i i i

10 LIST OF FIGURES 1. Shows mean p e rc e n t c o rre c t f o r a l l food groups a c ro ss p r e t e s t, w ith in in s tr u c tio n p ro b e s, and p o s tte s t f o r th re e experim en tal groups and c o n tro l Mean p e rc e n t c o rre c t f o r each food group on p r e t e s t, th re e p ro b es, and p o s tte s t a s a fu n c tio n of le sso n s ta u g h t f o r each o f th e th re e experim ental g ro u p s iv

11 LIST OF TABLES 1. Sample t e s t p r o to c o l O rder of in tro d u c tio n and exact examples in clu d ed in ta sk s used to te a c h th e v eg e ta b le group f o r each of th e th re e procedures P e rc e n t c o rre c t and raw sc o re s on p r e te s t and p o s tte s t fo r in d iv id u a l su b je c ts in th e ex p erim en tal group P e rc e n t c o rre c t on p r e te s t and p o s tte s t w ith in expeim ental groups f o r both item s ta u g h t and n o t ta u g h t d u rin g the in s tr u c tio n a l phase o f th e s tu d y v

12 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The p re s e n t study sought to e v a lu a te th e e f f e c t s of th re e in s tr u c tio n a l ap p ro aches, in c lu d in g th re e g e n e ra tiv e te a c h in g fo rm a ts, on food group la b e lin g resp o n ses in p resch o o l c h ild re n. Each of th e in s tr u c tio n a l approaches used D ire c t I n s tr u c tio n s tr a te g ie s to te a c h th e concepts o f th e v a rio u s food groups b u t d if f e r e d in term s o f th e p re s e n ta tio n o f exam ples to te a c h th e concept. Engelmann d e s c rib e s a concept in th e fo llo w in g manner: "th e s e t o f c h a r a c te r is tic s sh ared by a s e t o f in s ta n c e s in a given u n iv e rse and n o t shared by o th e r In sta n c e s in th a t u n iv e rs e." (c ite d by Becker 1974 p. 303). A b a s ic te n e t o f th e D ire c t I n s tr u c tio n approach in c lu d e s te a c h in g concepts in a g e n e ra tiv e manner. That i s, d esig n in g th e form at f o r te ach in g a concept so th a t maximum stim u lu s c o n tro l w ith in th e concept c la s s can be produced by p re sen tin g th e minimum number o f concept in s ta n c e s. T his re q u ire s b o th a c a r e fu l s e le c tio n o f th e s p e c if ic concept in s ta n c e s to be p re se n te d, as w e ll a s a c a re fu lly p re s c rib e d sequence f o r p re se n tin g th e se in s ta n c e s. A le s s i (1979) d e s c rib e s f iv e im p o rtan t g u id e lin e s f o r th e p ro p er p re s e n ta tio n o f a concept in a D ire c t In s tru c tio n manner. F i r s t, i t i s extrem ely Im portant to te ach one and o n ly one concept a t a tim e. T his av o id s co n fu sio n and en su res th a t th e form at f o r te ach in g i s n o t ambiguous. A fte r a b a s ic concept i s ta u g h t, i t may be in te g ra te d w ith o th e rs a lre a d y le a rn e d. ' 1

13 2 Second, p o s itiv e examples of th e concept must show th e com plete range o f th e concept. The examples must in c lu d e a l l i n i t i a l fe a tu re s o f th e concept and n o t show a lim ite d range alo n g c r i t i c a l f e a tu re dimensio n s. O therw ise, th e c h ild m ight be expected to make e r r o r s of u n d e rg e n e ra liz a tio n. For exam ple, when te a c h in g th e concept " c ir c l e," th e examples would in c lu d e w hich would d i f f e r in s i z e, c o lo r, and on o th e r re le v a n t f e a tu r e dim ensions. T h is would in c re a se th e p ro b a b ili t y th a t th e le a r n e r would c o rre c tly respond to th e c r i t i c a l fe a tu re s of " c i r c l e ; " and n o t respond to th e ir r e l e v a n t fe a tu re s. The th ir d g u id e lin e in c lu d e s th e p ro p e rr use o f n e g a tiv e examples in a te ach in g fo rm at. When p a irin g o r ju x ta p o s itio n in g a n e g a tiv e w ith a p o s itiv e exam ple, i t i s c r i t i c a l th a t th e examples be m inim ally d if f e r e n t, and only f o r th e stim u lu s f e a tu r e th a t i s c r i t i c a l fo r d is c rim in a tin g p o s itiv e from n e g a tiv e exam ples. A n e g a tiv e example which is th u s ly m inim ally d if f e r e n t shows th e p re c is e lim its of th e p o s itiv e example range and r u le s out th e g r e a te s t number of i r r e l e v a n t concept fe a tu r e s ( i. e. a l l f e a tu r e s shared by b o th p o s itiv e and n e g a tiv e exam ples m ust be ir r e le v a n t to e f f e c tiv e d i f f e r e n t i a l responding). For exam ple, when te a c h in g " c i r c l e " ' a m inim ally d if f e r e n t example would be th e s id e by s id e p re s e n ta tio n of a b lu e c i r c l e and a b lu e square - b o th being th e same dim ensions: c o lo r, a re a, th ic k n e s s, and made of th e same m a te r ia l. T his would d ecrease th e p r o b a b ility th a t th e le a r n e r would come under th e c o n tro l o f an ir r e le v a n t f e a tu re (c o lo r) and, th u s, make e r r o r s of o v e rg e n e ra liz a tio n th a t a l l c ir c le s a re b lu e (or b lu e is a c r i t i c a l fe a tu re of " c i r c l e " ), sin c e th e p o s itiv e and n e g a tiv e examples p re -

14 3 sen ted were id e n tic a l in a l l in sta n c e s except- shape. The fo u rth g u id e lin e d e a ls w ith th e w ording used in te a c h in g a concept. I t i s e s s e n tia l th a t i n i t i a l te ach in g o f a concept be as p re c is e and sim ple a s p o s s ib le to avoid co n fu sio n. Thus, throughout th e te a c h in g fd.rm at, w ording should be th e same a c ro ss a l l ju x tap o sed exam ples. A fte r th e le a rn e rs a re firm o r know th e concept a s a r e s u l t of i n i t i a l in s tr u c tio n, th e w ording may be expanded. The f i f t h g u id e lin e concerns th e use o f.examples w ith in th e teach in g fo rm at; t h i s i s c a lle d th e s e t-u p. The form at should teach w ith th e few est number of examples in th e i n i t i a l te a c h in g le sso n s to avoid co n fu sio n. M oreover, th e exam ples, b o th p o s itiv e and n e g a tiv e, should be ju x tap o sed a s c lo s e ly as p o s s ib le in tim e and sp ace. A fte r i n i t i a l firm in g of th e concept, th e form at may be expanded to in c re a se g e n e ra lity of th e concept a c ro ss changes in w ording, ty p e s of exam ples, and c o n te x ts. These f iv e p r in c ip le s serv e a s th e b a s is f o r th e D ire c t In s tru c tio n model f o r te a c h in g in term s of example s e le c tio n and sequence f o r p re s e n ta tio n o f exam ples. The D ire c t I n s tr u c tio n model came in to prom inence from P ro je c t Follow Through (Becker and C arnine, 1976; Becker and C arnine, 1981). T his f e d e r a lly funded study compared th e e f f e c ts o f n in e in s tr u c tio n a l approaches on th e academic s k i l l s o f econom ically disadvantaged c h ild ren a c ro ss th e co u n try. The Follow Through study dem onstrated th a t D ire c t In s tru c tio n can be an e f f e c tiv e in stru m en t to in c re a se language, re a d in g, and m athem atics s k i l l s fo r c h ild re n (Becker and C arnine, 1980; Becker and C arnine, 1981; Becker and Engelmann, 1978).

15 4 Based on Follow Through and subsequent s tu d ie s, re s e a rc h e rs c o lle c te d d a ta on th e v a rio u s unique components of th e D ire c t In s tr u c tio n program. I n s tr u c to r s in c o rp o ra te hand s ig n a ls in to in s tr u c tio n which prom otes u n iso n responding in sm all groups of s tu d e n ts. R esearch in d ic a te s t h a t th e use of s ig n a ls (C arnine and F in k, ;:Cowart, C arnine and B ecker, 1976) and o v e rt unison responding (F ink and B ecker, 1976) in c re a se academic perform ance as opposed to in d iv id u a l o r c o v e rt responding. A f a s t r a t e of p re s e n ta tio n i s an o th er in s tr u c tio n a l component w hich th e D ire c t I n s tr u c tio n model uses to in c re a s e s k i l l a c q u is itio n. R esearch in d ic a te s th a t a high r a t e of in s tr u c tio n in c re a se d p a r t i c i p a tio n r a t e, c o rre c t responding r a t e, and d ecreased o f f - ta s k b ehavior as compared to a low r a t e o f p r e s e n ta tio n (C arnine, 1976; Massad and G tz e l, 1972). C ontingent p ra is e f o r c o rre c t responding i s a n o th e r c r u c ia l component o f th e D ire c t I n s tr u c tio n model. Couched w ith in th e ed ucationa l s e ttin g, te a c h e r p r a is e decreased in a p p ro p ria te b eh av io r (Madsen, B ecker and Thomas, 1968; Thomas, B ecker and A rm strong, 1968). S ystem atic and s p e c if ic c o rre c tio n s of s tu d e n t e r r o r s in respondin g i s an o th e r im portant dim ension in th e im plem entation of th e D ire c t I n s tr u c tio n approach to te a c h in g. C arnine (1976) found th a t such c o rre c tio n s in c re a se d accuracy on tr a in in g q u e stio n s 55% as comp ared to I n s tr u c tio n w ith o u t sy ste m a tic c o rre c tio n s. The p re s e n t study in c o rp o ra te d a l l o f th e aforem entioned te ch n iq u es a c ro ss a l l th re e te a c h in g approaches. M oreover, th e study in s tr u c te d th e s u b je c ts in sm all groups (Fink and C arnine, 1975) as

16 opposed to la rg e group o r in d iv id u a l in s tr u c tio n. The p re s e n t re s e a rc h used o th e r D ire c t I n s tr u c tio n s tr a te g ie s a c ro ss a l l th re e ex p erim en tal groups. These programming tech n iq u es in clu d ed th e sequencing of exam ples (Stolurow, 1975), use o f a dynamic p re s e n ta tio n (C arn in e, 1978), and ju x ta p o s itio n in g of m inim ally d if f e r e n t p o s itiv e and n e g a tiv e exam ples (G radzin and C arn in e, 1977). The amount o f re s e a rc h on th e e ffe c tiv e n e s s o f th e g e n e ra tiv e apprach i s lim ite d. Low S tre s s A lgorithm s (A le s s i, 1974; H utchings, 1972) in a d d itio n, s u b tr a c tio n, m u ltip lic a tio n, and d iv is io n o p e ra tio n s a re exam ples of a g e n e ra tiv e approach a p p lie d to mathem a tic s. For example, Low S tre s s te ch n iq u es allow c h ild re n t.o c a lc u l a t e sums to any s iz e a d d itio n problem by u sin g only o p eratio n s on th e 100 b a s ic a d d itio n f a c t s. Low S tre s s does n o t re q u ire knowledge o f th e 900 complex a d d itio n f a c t s, nor reg ro u p in g operatio n s, w hich a re n ecessary w ith th e tr a d i tio n a l a d d itio n alg o rith m. T h ere fo re, Low S tre s s y ie ld s th e maximum range o f a d d itio n competence, by te ach in g th e few est number of s k i l l s. C arnine (1977) dem onstrated th a t phonic based in s tr u c tio n ( i. e. a g e n e ra tiv e approach) f a c i l i t a t e d le a rn in g of decoding s k i l l s over a meaning em phasis program o r s ig h t re a d in g. Phonic based in s tr u c tio n fo cu ses on te a c h in g some 40 s o u n d - le tte r a s s o c ia tio n s p lu s b le n d in g, which y ie ld s decoding c a p a b ility o f 300,000 words in th e E n g lish language. By c o n tr a s t, s ig h t read in g i s a lin e a r a d d itiv e form o f in s tr u c tio n w hich fo cu ses on te a c h in g alm ost every member of

17 th e decoding u n iv e rse ( e.g. te ach in g " c a t" as a s ig h t word r a th e r than te a c h in g th e l e t t e r 's so u n d ). S ight read in g has some g e n e ra tiv e power, such a s a c h ild le a rn in g th e words " fo o t" and " b a ll", and p u ttin g them to g e th e r to read " f o o tb a l l." But th e power i s b a s ic a lly lim ite d to compound words and some c o n s is ta n t morphemes ( e.g. " -e d," " - in g " ' " r e - " ). C arnine (1977) dem onstrated th a t a g e n e ra tiv e approach was e f f e c tiv e in te ach in g p re sc h o o l and c o lle g e s tu d e n ts a concept along a continuum. S u b je c ts' re c e iv e d in s tr u c tio n on a concept (c a lle d 5 'tat") which was a cardboard geom etric form w ith f iv e to e ig h t p o in ts. The re se a rc h e r p re se n te d p o s itiv e exam ples o f th e concept and b o th ends of th e continuum ( i. e. w ith f iv e o r e ig h t p o in ts ) and m inim ally d if f e r e n t n e g a tiv e s ( i.e. w ith fo u r o r n in e p o in ts ). A ll s u b je c ts responded c o r r e c tly to subsequent n o v el examples (w ith f iv e and e ig h t p o in ts ). The in s tr u c tio n was g e n e ra tiv e in th a t i t p re se n te d only examples a t e i th e r end o f th e continuum of th e concept a s p o s itiv e exam ples and p resen te d n e g a tiv e examples th a t were m inim ally d if f e r e n t. The s u b je c ts th e n id e n tif ie d novel examples c o r r e c tly by in te r p o la tin g a l l examples w ith in th e range a s p o s itiv e, and e x tra p o la tin g a l l exam ples o u tsid e th a t range a s n e g a tiv e, as dem onstrated in th e re s e a rc h teach in g sequence. Concepts g e n e ra lly f a l l in to two ty p es: th o se which each member sh a re s only one c r i t i c a l f e a tu r e, and th o se in which members sh a re m u ltip le c r i t i c a l fe a tu r e s ( i. e. c o n ju n ctiv e co n c e p ts). That i s, s in g le fe a tu r e concept examples can be changed in to n e g a tiv e

18 7 examples by changing only one v a ria b le o r fe a tu r e, w h ile c o n ju n ctiv e concept exam ples may be changed in to n e g a tiv e examples by changing any one o r more of s e v e ra l f e a tu r e s. Some of th e n e g a tiv e examples c re a te d would n o t b e a c tu a l o b je c ts, th u s, p re sen tin g th e programmer w ith a dilemma concerning which n e g a tiv e examples to u se. A lso, sin c e s e v e ra l fe a tu re s a r e in v o lv ed, i t becomes awkward ( i f n o t imp o s sib le ) to show th e p re c is e fe a tu re s (and t h e i r ran g es) which d e fin e th e concept boundary. Engelmann r e f e r s to c o n ju n c tiv e concepts a s "nouns" (Engelmann, 1981). When programming in s tr u c tio n on m u ltip le f e a tu re concepts such as nouns, in s tr u c tio n in a g e n e ra tiv e manner becomes in c re a s in g ly d i f f i c u l t. F o r exam ple, i t i s v ery d i f f i c u l t to u se th e s e t up p r in c ip le when te a c h in g noun c o n cepts, sin c e th e re i s u su a lly no p re c is e way o f changing p o s itiv e in to n e g a tiv e examples by changing th e c r i t i c a l f e a tu r e ( s ). Engelmann ex em p lifies t h i s p o in t when e x p a lin in g th e programming d i f f i c u l t i e s in c o n s tru c tin g an in s tr u c tio n a l s tr a te g y fo r th e concept "sh o e." "Even i f we t r i e d to s p e c ify a 'd e f i n i t i o n ' or c l a s s i f i c a t io n c r i t e r i o n f o r shoe th a t seemed to t a l l y p r e c is e, we would d isc o v e r th a t we could c re a te examples th a t a re ambiguous because examples a t th e boundary lin e s c a n 't be c le a r ly c la s s i f i e d. So i t i s w ith a l l nouns. The Im p lic a tio n fo r in s tr u c tio n i s th a t we should n o t tr y to c re a te a p r e c is e boundary lin e when v ery know ledgeable a d u lts do n o t ag ree on o n e." (Engelmann and C arnine, 1982, p. 55). This i s c e r ta in ly th e crux o f th e problem fo r th e p re se n t study

19 In s tru c tio n in th e P re sen t study focused on te a c h in g of th e b a s ic food groups: f r u i t s, g ra in s, m e ats, v e g e ta b le s, and d a iry p ro d u c ts. These a re m u ltip le f e a tu r e (noun) concept c la s s e s which m ust be d e a lt w ith in a s p e c ia l manner because o f problem s in g e n e ra tin g m inim ally d if f e r e n t exam ples. The problem i s d e a lt w ith by u sin g E n g elm an n 's-strate g y (Engelmann, 1982) o f s e le c tin g m inim ally d if f e r e n t n e g a tiv e examples from exam ples th e stu d e n t a lre a d y knows, r a th e r th a n from th e e n tir e u n iv e rse of p o te n tia l exam ples. T h is m o d ific a tio n helps a l l e v i a t e some o f th e in s tr u c tio n a l problem s a r is i n g from th e la c k o f a c le a n set-u p a p p lic a tio n ( i. e. th e s tr a te g y of ju x ta p o s itio n in g p o s itiv e and n e g a tiv e exam ples o f th e concept th a t d i f f e r only in one f e a tu r e and, th u s, cueing th a t f e a tu r e as c r i t i c a l f o r th e l e a r n e r 's d i f f e r e n t i a l re sp o n se). Thus, th e p re se n t stu d y attem p ted to e v a lu a te th e m ost e f f e c tiv e of th e se in s tr u c tio n a l approaches in te ach in g th e b a s ic food groups. The re searc h e v a lu a te d th re e types o f g e n e ra tiv e in s tr u c tio n : G enerative I, G enerative I I, and G en erativ e I I I.

20 CHAPTER I I METHOD S u b jects There were a t o t a l o f 18 s u b je c ts : 13 in th e ex p erim en tal group and 6 in th e c o n tro l group. There were e ig h t males.: and te n fem ales w ith ages rangin g from 3.2 to 4.5 y e a rs. A ll s u b je c ts atte n d e d a p resch o o l which em phasized a c c e le ra te d a c q u is itio n of academic and s o c ia l s k i l l s. The s u b je c ts were s e le c te d by two c r i t e r i a. F i r s t, th e s tu d e n ts had a h is to r y of f iv e day p e r week atten d an c e d u rin g th e scheduled experim en tal s e s s io n s. Second, they had to be c u rre n tly e n ro lle d in o r have com pleted D is ta r Language I (Engelmann and O sborne, 1976). D is ta r i s an acronym f o r D ire c t In s tru c tio n system s f o r teach in g and rem ediatio n. The language program focuses on te a c h in g b a s ic concepts and responding to te a c h e r d ir e c tio n s. I t a ls o serv es as a fo u n d atio n fo r subsequent responding u sin g th e D ire c t In s tru c tio n model. The s tu d e n ts were randomly assig n ed to th re e ex p erim en tal groups, u sin g a random number ta b le. The experim enter d id n o t form a c o n tro l group from th e same pool as used fo r th e ex p erim en tal group, due to th e sm all number of s u b je c ts who met th e academic c r i t e r i a and atte n d e d a t th e tim e of th e experim en tal s e s s io n s. The experim enter s e le c te d c o n tro l s u b je c ts who met th e academ ic c r i t e r i a, b u t d id n o t a tte n d a t th e tim e 9

21 10 of day of th e experim ental s e s s io n s. T his schedule of atten d an ce was th e o n ly known d iffe re n c e betw een stu d e n ts In th e experim ental and c o n tro l groups. S e ttin g A re se a rc h o rite n te d p re sch o o l supported by W estern M ichigan U n iv e rsity, lo c a te d in Kalamazoo, M ichigan, served as th e lo c a tio n fo r th e re s e a rc h. The a d m in is tra tio n and su p p o rtiv e s t a f f a t th e c e n te r c o n siste d p rim a rily of undergraduate and g rad u ate psychology stu d e n ts a tte n d in g th e u n iv e rs ity. The c h ild re n in th e stu d y re c e iv e d in s tr u c tio n in one o f two rooms w ith in th e p re sch o o l. The f i r s t classroom was approxim ately 9 by 12 m eters w ith linoleum f lo o r s and c in d e r b lo c k w a lls. The room has two s e ts o f c h a irs in o p p o site c o rn e rs, arran g ed in semic i r c l e s, and fa c in g th e ir re s p e c tiv e c o rn e rs. The i n s tr u c to r 's c h a ir faced th e s u b je c t's c h a ir s. The second in s tr u c tio n a l are a was 12 by 15 m eters w ith a carp e te d flo o r and c in d e r b lo ck w a lls. Both rooms were unused classroom s which had adequate v e n tila tio n and lig h tin g f o r in s tr u c tio n. A lso, b o th rooms had p o rta b le bookshelves which served as d iv id e rs f o r p riv acy d u rin g th e sm all group in s tr u c tio n. M a te ria ls An in te g r a l component o f th e re se a rc h was th e in c o rp o ra tio n of a s tru c tu re d p re s e n ta tio n o f te a c h e r w ording, te a c h e r b eh av io r, stu d e n t resp o n ses, and p ic tu re d s tim u li. I n s tr u c tio n a l fo rm ats f a c i l i t a t e d

22 t h i s component of th e stu d y. The s c r ip t s w ere s p e c if ic to th e th re e in s tr u c tio n a l methods employed in th e re s e a rc h. The s c r ip ts ^ n s u r e d th a t in s tr u c tio n a c ro ss a l l groups adhered to b a s ic d ir e c t in s tr u c tio n p r in c ip le s, such a s is o la tin g one s k i l l a t a tim e and ju x ta p o - s itio n in g m inim ally d if f e r e n t p o s itiv e and n e g a tiv e exam ples. Thus, to c o n tro l th e q u a lity o f th e in s tr u c tio n and m ain tain a c o n siste n cy in p re se n tin g th e m a te r ia l, th e program d e sig n e rs typed th e s p e c if ic te a c h e r wording in upper case l e t t e r s on 8% by 11 in ch p a p e r. Also embedded in th e form at f o r in s tr u c tio n was th e s p e c if ic b eh av io r o r a c tio n s of th e te a c h e r w hich corresponded to th e w ording. The program d e sig n e rs coded te a c h e r a c tio n s by ty p in g them in low er case l e t t e r s in p a re n th e s is. To c o n tro l f o r p o s s ib le m isru le s o r u n clear c r i t e r i a fo r th e s u b je c t re sp o n se s, th e s c r i p t provided th e c o rre c t response in low er case l e t t e r s. The s c r ip ts a ls o co n tain ed p ic tu r e s tim u li w hich served as exam ples and nonexamples o f th e taught concept. I n s tr u c tio n i n i t i a l l y focused on te a c h in g th e d is c rim in a tio n o f p ic tu r e s w hich w ere foods from th o se th a t were n o t fo o d s. N ext, in s tr u c tio n focused on c la s s ify in g foods a s b elo n g in g to one o f the f iv e b a s ic food groups. F in a lly, in s tr u c tio n c e n te re d on la b e lin g a s p e c if ic food item w ith i t ' s p ro p er name. A p ro fe s s io n a l a r t i s t drew th e p ic tu r e s tim u li in b la c k and w h ite and then photocopied th e draw ings so th a t th ey could be d ir e c tly p asted on th e s c r i p t. The re s e a rc h e r su p erv ised stu d e n t s t a f f members who co lo re d th e p ic tu re s w ith co lo re d p e n c ils. The

23 12 s tim u li corresponded w ith te a c h e r w ording m entioned above. The examples of s p e c if ic food types v a rie d a c ro s s le sso n s, having th re e d if f e r e n t v a r ia tio n s of each food type in c o rp o ra te d in to in s tr u c tio n. In summary, th e s c r ip t s ty p ic a lly had te a c h e r w ording, te a c h e r a c tio n s, and stu d e n t resp o n ses typed on th e l e f t s id e o f the paper and p ic tu re s tim u li on th e r ig h t s id e. The re se a rc h e r p laced th e fin is h e d s c rip te d form ats in c le a r p l a s t i c page p ro te c to rs and In s e rte d them in to a rin g e d f o ld e r fo r b o th th e p ro te c tio n of th e s c r ip t s and ease in p re s e n ta tio n o f th e m a te ria ls. The re s e a rc h e r c o n stru c te d a p r e te s t and p o s tte s t to m easure g ain s from in s tr u c tio n. The t e s t s were c o n stru c te d from th e same m a te ria ls m entioned in th e above s e c tio n f o r programmed s c r i p t s - 8*g by 11 in c h paper w ith p l a s t i c page p r o te c to r s in a rin g ed f o ld e r. The t e s t s c o n tain ed a l l o f th e food groups ta u g h t in th e in s tr u c tio n a l phase of th e p r o je c t p lu s fiv e v e g e ta b le, fo u r m eats, and two f r u i t s n o t p re sen te d in in s tr u c tio n. The pages c o n siste d of th re e rows of th re e p ic tu r e s tim u li, w ith no d ir e c tio n f o r wording o r te a c h e r a c tio n s. The t e s t had a t o t a l o f 45 s tim u li on f iv e pages. S tudent s t a f f adm in istered th e t e s t s. They receiv e d in s tr u c tio n s, b o th v e rb a l and w r itte n, on th e a d m in is tra tio n of th e t e s t s. The re s e a rc h e r designed th e p ro to c o l to re c o rd th e s tu d e n ts ' responses to th e t e s t s. The p ro to c o ls were sim ply a d itto e d l i s t o f th e s tim u li corresponding to th e p ic tu r e w hich had th e fo o d s' p ro p er name and th e food c la s s f o r th a t food. The re s e a rc h e r seg reg ated item s on th e p ro to c o l by p la c in g a s o lid double lin e between th o se item s found on one page o f th e p ic tu r e s tim u li to th o se found on th e next page

24 13 (see Table 1 ). S ta ff In s tr u c to r s I n s tr u c to r s fo r the stu d y were two male and seven fem ale undergraduate psychology s tu d e n ts. The In s tru c to rs were ju n io rs and se n io rs and had a t l e a s t b a s ic knowledge o f th e D ire c t I n s tr u c tio n model. T rain in g was on th re e le v e ls. F i r s t, th e in s tr u c to r s receiv ed l i t e r a t u r e re g a rd in g v a rio u s th e o r e tic a l and te c h n ic a l a sp e c ts of d ir e c t in s tr u c tio n. One week a f t e r re c e iv in g th e m a te ria l, th e in s tr u c to r s ' receiv ed a w r itte n t e s t on th e m a te ria l on which they had to sc o re a t le a s t 90% to proceed to th e next component of. tra in in g. N ext, they in d iv id u a lly r o l e played (u sin g sim ple s c rip te d form ats) w ith th e w r ite r serv in g a s the s tu d e n t/s u b je c t. The form ats used in th is component of tr a in in g were from D is ta r Language I, le sso n s 16 and 21. The au th o r a ssesse d the in s tr u c to r s in.te rm s of th e ir responses to stu d e n t m istak es such as e a rly, l a t e, and in c o rre c t responding. C rite rio n f o r proceeding to th e n ex t component of th e tr a in in g was 100% accuracy on c o rre c tin g the aforem entioned le a r n e r s ' m istak es by u sin g th e m o d e l-le a d -te s t c o rre c tio n procedure and c o rre c t Im plem entation of o th e r D ire c t In s tru c tio n m ethodology. The th ir d component of tr a in in g was id e n tic a l to th e second; except the in s tr u c to r s r o le played among them selves, using th e f i r s t two le sso n s of th e food group form at. In t h i s arrangem ent, each in s tr u c to r p resen te d th e m a te ria l to th e o th e r two in s tr u c to r s a s w ell as to th e au th o r ( i. e., a l l th r e e ro ta te d, serv in g as th e in s tr u c to r as w ell a s the le a r n e r ). T h is more c lo s e ly approxim ated c o n d itio n s

25 Table 1 Sample of protocol used to record subject responses on the pretest, probes, and posttest. PRETEST/POSTTEST PROTOCOL: Vegetables (Broccoli) Dairy Product (Cottage Cheese) F ru it (Cherry)* Meat.(Ham) F ru it (Grape) * FOOD GROUP RESEARCH Vegetable (Celery)* Grains (Grain) Vegetable (C arrot) Meat (Turkey)* Meat (Tuna) _Dairy Product (Milk) F ru it (G rapefruit) Vegetable (Potato) F ru it (Apple) Meat (Pork)* G rain (Oatmeal) Vegetable (Corn) Dairy Product (Togurt) Meat (Bacon)'* F ru it (Orange) _Vegetable (Onion) Meat (Egg) Vegetable (Beans)* Meat (Chicken) _F ru it (Lemon) Meat (Beef) _Vegetable (Sprouts) F ru it (Banana) Meat (Bologna) Vegetable (Tomato) Dairy Product (Ice Cream) Vegetable (Lettuce)* Dairy Product (Cheese) F ru it (Peach) Grain (M illet) Meat (Fish) Vegetables (Peas) Grains (Wheat) Vegetable (Spinach)* Meat (Hamburg)* F ru it (Pear) Meat(Hot Dog) Vegetables (Green B.)' Dairy Prod. (B utter) F ru it (B lueberries)* * Represents items which the subjects were not in stru c ted.

26 15 In th e study which re q u ire d th a t th e in s tr u c to r p re se n t to a sm all group. The tr a in in g la s te d two weeks. I n s tr u c to r s were n o t p aid fo r th e ir p a r tic ip a tio n in th e re s e a rc h ; b u t receiv e d la b c r e d it f o r t h e i r s e rv ic e s. The in s tr u c to r earned p o in ts fo r a p p ro p ria te behavior and l o s t them fo r in a p p ro p ria te b eh av io r. B ehaviors in clu d ed both p ro fe s s io n a l and academic s k i l l s. The in s tr u c to r s ' p o in t t o t a l d ir e c tly r e la te d to th e i r course g rad es. The follow ing m easures were taken to ensure th a t th e in s tr u c to r s adhered to th e s c rip te d form at and g e n e ra lly follow ed th e D ire c t In s tru c tio n methodology d u rin g tre a tm e n t. An independent observer observed th e le sso n s of each in s tr u c to r th re e tim es a week f o r te n m inutes each o b serv a tio n. I f th e in s tr u c to r made minor m istakes such a s o m ittin g one second pause b e fo re dropping th e hand in a hand s ig n a l, th e o b serv er would inform th e in s tr u c to r a f t e r th e le sso n on th e d e f i c i t component. However, i f th e in s tr u c to r made a m ajor m istake such a s o m ittin g words from the s c rip te d fo rm at, th e O bserver would stop th e le sso n and c o rre c t th e m istak e b e fo re c o n tin u in g in s tr u c tio n. Dependent V ariab le The re se a rc h e r a sse sse d th e e f f e c ts o f in s tr u c tio n by a d m in iste r ing a p r e te s t and p o s tte s t th a t w ere id e n tic a l in term s o f co n stru c tio n, a d m in is tra tio n, and sco rin g te ch n iq u es. The dependent v a ria b le was accuracy of c a te g o riz in g ( i. e., naming) foods as b ein g a member of one of th e f iv e b a sic food groups m entioned p re v io u sly. Each t e s t contained 45 p ic tu r e s tim u li th a t were id e n tic a l to the

27 16 p ic tu re s tim u li used fo r th e in s tr u c tio n. Embedded w ith in th e te s t were th e fo llo w in g food ite m s: te n f r u i t, s ix d a iry p ro d u c ts, t h i r teen v e g e ta b le s, tw elve m e ats, and fo u r g ra in s. The t e s t contained no non-foods (see Table 1). In a d d itio n to ad m in iste rin g a p r e te s t and p o s t t e s t, th re e a s sessm ents of th e s u b je c ts food la b e lin g responses were o b tain ed w ith in th e in s tr u c tio n a l phase of th e re searc h. These probes were a p o rtio n of th e p r e te s t /p o s tte s t as th e re s e a rc h e r s e le c te d two out of th e f iv e page t e s t to m easure the s u b s e ts ' resp o n ses. T hat i s, the re s e a rc h e r used pages one and two f o r th e f i r s t assessm en t, th re e and fo u r fo r th e second assessm ent, and one and fiv e f o r th e th ir d and f in a l assessm ent. As w ith th e p r e te s t and p o s t t e s t, none of th e subj e c t resp o n ses were re in fo rc e d fo r c o rre c t responding. R ecording of su b je c t responses f o r th e probes c o n siste d of sim ply u sin g th e c o rre s ponding se c tio n s o f the p r e te s t and p o s tte s t p ro to c o ls. Independent V ariab le In s tr u c tio n a l Procedures A ll th re e in s tr u c tio n a l tre a te m n ts shared c h a r a c te r i s t ic s th a t w ill be d iscu ssed a t th is tim e. Teachers in s tru c te d th e s u b je c ts on e ith e r a 1:3 o r 1:2 r a t i o. The in s tr u c to r s a t fa c in g th e s u b je c ts and w ith in arms reach w ith the le sso n book supported on t h e i r knee or an a d ja c e n t ta b le. W ith th e a id o f the s c rip te d fo rm at, th e in s tr u c to r p resen ted v e rb a l in s tr u c tio n s coupled w ith one of two s ig n a ls w hich prompted unison responding in the s u b je c ts. When th e in s tr u c to r e x c lu siv e ly

28 17 p resen te d v e rb a l s tim u li, a hand drop s ig n a l cued responding. For exam ple, i f th e in s tr u c to r s a id, "Everybody, stan d u p," th e in s tr u c to r would g iv e a one second " th in k in g pause" to allo w th e su b je c t to p rep are to respond. Then th e in s tr u c to r would s lig h t ly r a is e th e a lre a d y exposed palm and v ig o ro u sly drop i t to th e hip a re a. At th is tim e, th e su b je c ts responded. When p ic tu r e s coin cid ed w ith v e rb a l in s tr u c tio n, th e in s tr u c to r used a p o in t touch s ig n a l. This was s im ila r to th e hand-drop s ig n a l except th e in s tr u c to r p o in ted to th e p ic tu r e s tim u li and touched th e o b je c t to s ig n a l unison responding. In o rd e r to en su re a f a s t r a te o f p re s e n ta tio n, th e su b je c ts, were c o rre c te d of they responded e ith e r to o soon o r too l a t e a f t e r the s ig n a l w hich cued resp o n d in g. In c o rre c t resp o n ses were d e a lt w ith by u sin g th e m o d e l-le a d -te s t c o rre c tio n procedure (C arnine, 1977). Thus, c o n tin g en t upon an in c o rre c t resp o n se, th e in s tr u c to r would model th e c o rre c t response, le a d th e e n t ir e group o f stu d e n ts through th e c o rre c t resp o n se (say i t w ith them ), and re p e a t th e q u e stio n ag ain ( t e s t ). T his would b e rep eated u n t i l a l l s u b je c ts responded c o rre c tly. The in s tr u c to r re in fo rc e d th e c o rre c t resp o n ses u sin g b o th s o c ia l p r a is e and s tic k e r s. The s u b je c ts re c e iv e d p r a is e fo r rem ainin g on ta s k o r c o rre c t resp o n d in g. I n s tr u c to r s p ra is e d behav io rs rangin g from c o rre c t resp o n d in g on d i f f i c u l t item s to rem aining in t h e ir s e a t and a tte n d in g to a p p ro p ria te s tim u li. P r a is e statem en ts were b o th g en era l and s p e c if ic to th e ta s k. The s u b je c ts receiv e d s tic k e r s to supplem ent and in c re a s e th e e ffe c tiv e n e s s o f th e v e rb a l p r a is e. S ubjects earned up to th re e gum backed s ta r s a c ro ss each

29 18 le sso n of In s tru c tio n f o r a p p ro p ria te s o c ia l and academ ic b eh av io r. The su b je c t p laced th e s t a r on a card made o f c o n stru c tio n paper f o r re c o rd in g p u rp o ses. Upon re c e iv in g f iv e s t a r s, th e su b je c t receiv ed a food s tic k e r. These s tic k e r s had p ic tu re s o f f r u i t o r v e g e ta b le s on and and when s c ra tc h e d, gave th e aroma of th e given food item. The in s tr u c to r ad m in iste re d th e s ta r r e d s tic k e r s d u rin g th e le sso n, b u t did n o t a d m in iste r th e food s tic k e r s u n t i l th e co n clu sio n of th e le sso n. The in s tr u c to r d e liv e re d s tic k e r s c o n tin g e n t upon c o rre c t resp o n ses a c ro ss a l l experim en tal groups, but only d uring th e in s tr u c tio n a l phase of th e study and n o t d u rin g any of th e te s tin g p e rio d s, in c lu d in g th e w ith in in s tr u c tio n p robes. Each in s tr u c tio n a l approach (G enerative I, G enerative I I, and G enerative I I I ) had i t s own re s p e c tiv e fo rm a ts. For a l l th re e in s tr u c tio n approaches, th e re se a rc h e r attem p ted to in c lu d e examples w hich rep re se n te d th e w id e st range of members w ith in each food group. The program included food item s which v a rie d in shape, s iz e, and c o lo r to attem p t to dem onstrate th e range of exam ples f o r each of th e th re e approaches. T able 2 shows th e range o f examples sampled in th e v e g e ta b le group. Subsequent food groups were ta u g h t in a s im ila r manner. Each group receiv ed cum ulative review f o r p re v io u sly taught members. N egative examples f o r th e f i r s t group, v e g e ta b le s, were s e le c te d from p rev io u sly ta u g h t exam ples of non-foods. N egative examples fo r subsequent food groups w ere s e le c te d from p re v io u sly taught food groups. Also c o n s is te n t a c ro s s a l l th re e in s tr u c tio n a l approaches was th e f i n a l component o f in s tr u c tio n - food item c l a s s i f i c a t io n. A fte r

30 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without T 3 CD 3 <f) (/) o Table 2 O rder o f In tro d u c tio n and Exact Examples Included in Tasks Used to Teach th e V egetable Group f o r Each o f th e Three P rocedures G enerative I G enerative I I G enerative I I I L esson: Tomato X X R R R R R R R R R R R R X X R R R R R R X R R Com XXS&SRRRR R R R R R XX RR ER R R XRR Peas X X R R R R R R R R R R X X R R R R X R R B ro cco li X X R R R R R R R R X X R R X R R Onion X X R R R R R R X X P o tato X X R R R R C arro t X X R R Sprout X X X - re p re s e n ts le sso n s in th e form at I n i t i a l l y ta u g h t f o r each item. R - re p re s e n ts cum ulative review f o r each item.

31 20 th e le a r n e r s ' m astered (responded 100% c o rre c t on a l l q u estio n s d uring in s tr u c tio n ) la b e lin g th e c la s s name fo r item s in th e f i r s t food c la s s ( e.g., v e g e ta b le ), and began le a rn in g members of th e n ex t c la s s ( e. g., f r u i t ), a new form o f la b e l te a c h in g began. D uring th is component of in s tr u c tio n, th e program in tro d u ced a p rev io u sly taught food group member, b u t p resen te d i t ' s p ro p er name as w e ll a s i t ' s r e la tio n s h ip to a b a s ic food group. For exam ple, i f i n i t i a l in s tr u c tio n had been f o r th e v eg etab le food group and now in s tr u c tio n began on th e f r u i t group, th e program in clu d ed a form at to te a c h th e s p e c if ic names of a l l th e p re v io u sly ta u g h t v e g e ta b le s, l i s t e d in Table 2. The d u ra tio n of in s tr u c tio n was tw enty to t h i r t y m inutes p er d ay, f iv e days p e r week, f o r te n weeks. In th e event th a t an in d iv id u a l s u b je c t was a b sen t, th e in s tr u c to r provided e x tra p r a c tic e f o r th e re tu rn in g su b je c t on th e c u rre n t le sso n, b u t n o t n e c e s s a rily th e le sso n th e s u b je c t m issed. I f more than one s u b je c t from th e same group m issed a le sso n, th e in s tr u c to r rep e a te d t h a t le sso n to th e e n tir e group upon t h e i r r e tu r n. The in s tr u c to r reco rd ed su b je c t a tte n d a n c e, d a te th e in s tr u c to r p resen te d th e le s s o n, and g en era l comments reg ard in g s u b je c t responding. The th re e in s tr u c tio n a l s tr a t e g ie s, G en erativ e I, G e n e ra tiv e ll, and G enerative I I I, d if f e r e d in s p e c if ic ways. F i r s t, th e G enerative I approach began in s tr u c tio n in each food c la s s w ith th e in tro d u c tio n o f two food item s a s p o s itiv e exam ples, f o r two le s s o n s. For exam ple, I n s tr u c to r s taught "tom ato" and "com " a s v eg etab le s f o r two c o n secu tiv e le sso n s. In s tru c tio n proceeded by in tro d u c in g ''b ro c c o li" in th e f i f t h and s ix th le s s o n s, "onion" fo r th e

32 21 In tro d u cin g " b ro c c o li" in th e f i f t h and s ix th le s s o n s, "onion" fo r th e seven th and e ig h th le s s o n s, and so f o r th. The s u b je c ts in th e G enerative I approach, th u s, had had p r io r exposure to every item in th e l a t e r used food item s naming form at a s a r e s u l t o f th e food group la b e lin g form at. The purpose of th e G en erativ e I I I group was to see i f t h i s form at would be ab le to te a c h th e new members w ith in th e review fo rm at, even though th ey had not been ta u g h t in th e i n i t i a l. te a c h in g sequences. T his would save in s tr u c tio n a l tim e i f i t worked. Thus, in th e G en erativ e I I I approach, a l l examples fo r each food group were in tr o duced sim u ltan e o u sly. I n s tr u c to r s ' p resen te d v a rio u s p ic tu r e s of item s in each food c la s s a s examples o f th e given food c la s s, fo r th re e c o n secu tiv e le sso n s. For exam ple, in th e v e g e ta b le food c la s s th e form at in tro d u ced a l l th e fo llo w in g food item s on th re e consecutiv e le sso n s: "tom ato," " c o m," " p e a s," and " b ro c c o li." A fte r th re e c o n secu tiv e le sso n s w ith in th e food c la s s, in s tr u c tio n stopped f o r th a t food group and began fo r th e n ex t food c la s s. D uring in s tr u c tio n in th e second food c la s s ( f r u i t ), a d d itio n a l in s tru c tio n began on te a c h in g th e s p e c if ic food name fo r members o f th e p rev io u s ly ta u g h t food c a ls s (v e g e ta b le ). A lthough th e form at f o r la b e lin g foods p re se n te d th e le a rn e rs w ith no more than f iv e foods fo r any given c la s s, th e food naming form at included a l l o f th e foods taught in th e L in ear A d d itiv e approach (which to ta le d up to e ig h t members). Thus, in a d d itio n to th e p re v io u sly m entioned v e g e ta b le s in th e G en erativ e I I I group, th e form at p resen te d th e le a rn e rs w ith th re e

33 22 v e g e ta b le s in th e food naming form at embedded w ith in the f r u i t food group la b e lin g form at ( i. e., th e in s tr u c to r s a id, "This v e g e ta b le i s an o n io n," even though onion had n o t been an example i n the p rev io u s food groups in s tr u c tio n a l s e s s io n s ). T his is a g e n e ra tiv e a sp e c t o f the in s tr u c tio n s th e re se a rc h h ypothesized th a t the le a r n e r would g e n e ra liz e from th e I n i t i a l s e t of examples to o th e r members w ith in th e s e t. The l a s t approach was a G enerative I I method (a sp e c ts of b o th th e G enerative I and G en erativ e I I I ). The program d e sig n e rs developed th is term because th e form at fo r te a c h in g item s using th i s s tra te g y was id e n tic a l to th e G en erativ e approach w ith one e x c e p tio n ; in s te a d of in tro d u cin g a l l of th e food item s, i t in tro d u ced only a su b se t o f th ese members. As w ith th e G enerative I approach, in s tr u c tio n began on each food c la ss w ith two food items f o r two le s s o n s. The rem aining th re e item s were in tro d u c e d one a t a tim e and fo r two days each. A d d itio n a lly, however, t h i s method also in clu d ed th e use of a la b e lin g item s form at in th e le sso n s on th e n e x t food group ( f r u i t ), teach in g form at f o r each food group to o k e ig h t days as compared to th re e in th e G enerative I I I approach, and fo u rte e n in th e G en erativ e I approach. The G enerative I I approach and th e G en erativ e I approach were id e n tic a l except in th e number of food item s p resen te d from each food group. R e lia b ility R e lia b ility durin g th e te s tin g p erio d focused on th e reco rd in g of th e s u b je c ts responses to th e t e s t item s. An independent o b se r

34 23 v er made r e l i a b i l i t y checks on 15 of th e 18 p r e te s ts and 18 of th e 18 p o s t t e s t s. Both th e in s tr u c to r and th e independent o b serv er had id e n tic a l t e s t p ro to c o ls, reco rd in g th e responses o f th e s u b je c ts d u rin g th e com plete d u ra tio n of th e t e s t. The re se a rc h e r c a lc u la te d r e l i a b i l i t y by d iv id in g th e item agreem ent o f th e o b serv ers by th e agreem ents p lu s d isag reem en ts, and m u ltip ly in g th e q u o tie n t by 100. R e lia b ility m easures y ie ld e d 92% agreem ent on th e p r e te s t and 98% agreem ent on th e p o s tte s t s c o re s. No r e l i a b i l i t y d a ta were c o l le c te d on th e p robes. The stu d y term in ated a f te r te n weeks of in s tr u c tio n and one week of p o s tte s t assessm ent. T h is c o in cid ed w ith te rm in a tio n o f th e academic sem ester f o r th e c o lle g e stu d e n t in s tr u c to r s. >

35 CHAPTER I I I RESULTS F igure 1 shows t e s t r e s u l t s on a l l th re e ex p erim en tal groups and c o n tro l group. Data p o in ts re p re s e n t th e mean p e rc e n t c o rre c t on p r e t e s t, probes 1, 2, and 3, and p o s tte s t. To c a lc u la te each d a ta p o in t, th e re s e a rc h e r d iv id e d th e sum o f c o rre c t resp o n ses f o r a group on a given t e s t by th e t o t a l number of item s p re sen te d to th a t group on th a t t e s t ( i. e., 45 item s on p r e te s t and p o s t t e s t ; 18 item s on a l l th re e p ro b e s ). The mean p e rc e n t c o rre c t o f the c o n tro l group was s ta b le a c ro ss a l l t e s t s, f lu c tu a tin g no more than ±2% from a mean of 2%. The cont r o l group scored 1.7% low er on th e p o s tte s t th an th e p r e te s t. A ll ex p erim en tal groups showed in c re a s e s in mean p e rc e n t c o rre c t responding from p r e te s t t o p o s tte s t. The G en erativ e I I I group in creased 81% from th e p r e te s t sc o re w ith In c re a ses a c ro s s th e w ith in In s tr u c tio n p ro b es. The G enrativ e I group in c re a sed a c ro ss th e w ith in in s tr u c tio n probes 71% over p re 'te s t s c o re. The G enerative I I group showed a 41.4% in c re a se from p r e te s t to p o s t t e s t. However, t h i s in c re a se o ccurred t o t a l l y in th e f i r s t p ro b e, and th e perform ance dropped o ff on th e subsequent pro b es. T able 3 shows p e rc e n t c o rre c t responses and raw sc o re s on th e p ret e s t and p o s tte s t f o r each s u b je c t. The ta b le shows th a t in d iv id u a l s u b je c t sc o re s g e n e ra lly re p re s e n t th e group means in F ig u re 1. The two h ig h e st sc o re s on th e p r e te s t were S ubject 2 o f th e 24