Academic responses and attitudes engendered by a programmed course in child development.

Both a small course section and a large course section were taught with methods that involved breaking material down into weekly units that had to be mastered by students as indicated by weekly tests. Attendance at lectures was voluntary and students were not tested on lecture material. In a system in which a student could receive only an A or an F for a course grade, less than 2% of the students receiving credit failed to master all material and received Fs. Students in the large course performed better on weekly tests and received fewer Fs than their counterparts in the small course, even though they rated their experience less favorably. Within the large course, the methods of tutorial interview, group discussion, and written assignment were compared in terms of their effectiveness in preparing students for weekly tests. Tutorials and written assignments were superior to group discussions in this regard. Students rated the effectiveness and enjoyability of these three methods in the reverse order from their actual effectiveness for test preparation. Some consequences of lack of congruity between attitude measures and performance measures were discussed.