State University of New York at Stony Brook.
J Appl Behav Anal. 1972 Fall;5(3):283-91. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1972.5-283.
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.
小班和大班都采用了将材料分解为每周单元的方法进行教学，学生必须通过每周的测验来掌握这些单元。讲座是自愿参加的，学生不会接受讲座材料的测试。在学生的课程成绩只能是 A 或 F 的系统中，不到 2%的获得学分的学生未能掌握所有材料，获得了 F。尽管他们对自己的体验评价不高，但大班学生在每周测验中的表现优于小班学生，并且获得的 F 更少。在大班中，比较了辅导面试、小组讨论和书面作业这三种方法在帮助学生为每周测验做准备方面的有效性。在这方面，辅导和书面作业优于小组讨论。学生们对这三种方法的有效性和趣味性的评价与它们对测试准备的实际有效性相反。讨论了态度测量和绩效测量之间缺乏一致性的一些后果。
