.n...--.-....-. 4‘700-uyutvw-ut EVALUATION OF AN AUOIO -TUTORIAL-MASTERY LEARNING PROGRAM IN SOIL-SCIENCE FOR v ' AGRICULTURAL-TECHNOLOGY STUDENTS , Dissertation for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY TERENCE H. COOPER 1975 LIBRARY I Michigan.‘ :0} Uni‘msity This is to certify that the thesis entitled Evaluation of an Audio-Tutorial Mastery Learning Program in Soil Science for Agricultural Technology Students presented by Terence H. Cooper has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Soil Science A fix Ma' professor / ' Uh. .fi Date 07639 “e I» r—waw---,., ' - I V 4 .T‘ L‘l" . .1" INS? ' I: P’. . I r. - . ... In ‘I‘. htWL‘L‘LJ, ‘U. '- .‘.§.iy? CF: . ‘ u ‘\ O 'y\"'\f\\L! '11.“. 1y 'I k. ‘ e u. ~ ' ‘. .. -I. . r . . , - . . ._ slut: ~- n" An. ~ , ta .’ ’ " I jStr'nct'w-uz’; -: - 15-: "was. r i“ :' “-2 _ us." . 713:1.“ K” . ’ 41" ~ via. . ' _ . L: ' - If. v i . ' n 6. --I eWw ABSTRACT EVALUATION OF AN AUDIO-TUTORIAL MASTERY LEARNING PROGRAM IN SOIL SCIENCE FOR AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY STUDENTS BY Terence H. Cooper Students in two year Agricultural Technology programs have diverse vocational interests and varying academic ability. When two—year students from different majors are in a conventional lecture—laboratory course there is often a lack of diversification to meet the needs of all students. This study was conducted to determine the effectiveness of an audio-tutorial mastery learning program, containing relevant information for each major (Turfgrass, Landscape—Nursery and Floriculture), in an introductory soil science course for students in the Institute of Agricultural Technology at Michigan State University. The audio-tutorial mastery learning program used in 1974 and 1975 consisted of: (1) nine audio—tutorial units called Structured Learning and Teaching Environments (SLATES); (2) relevant information for each major incorporated into the Terence H. Cooper SLATES; (3) a student workbook containing behavioral object— ives, SLATE procedures, lecture outlines for the two lectures per week, and self tests; and (4) five summative exams covering behavioral objectives from SLATES and lectures to establish a grade with a retesting opportunity available for remediation. Students were encouraged to visit the learning center as much as needed by either using their scheduled hour or when free periods were available to complete the one SLATE unit per week. Achievement comparisons were made between the audio- tutorial (experimental group) and the lecture-laboratory (control group) programs. Students in the control (1972 and 1973) were scheduled for one 2-hour conventional laboratory and two lectures per week. Exams consisted of two lecture exams and a final. Increases in achievement were noted for the experimental group as indicated by significant differences (5% level) in mean grade achieved. The increase in achievement occurred for all academic ability levels and for each major in the class. Grades predicted for the experimental group, as if they had taken the lecture-laboratory program (by the use of multiple regression), were significantly lower (5% level) than actual grades achieved. Sixty-three percent of the students who took retests improved their test scores, and behavioral objectives were achieved by three-fourths of the students in the experimental group. Correlations between the time spent in the learning center and the grade achieved were not significant (5% level) indicating that factors other than Terence H. Cooper learning center time were important in determining student achievement. Student evaluations from the Michigan State University Student Instructional Rating System indicated no differences between the control and experimental groups in terms of instructor involvement, student-instructor interaction, stu— dent interest and course demands. Significant increases (5% level) for the experimental group over the control group were noted for course organization. Remaining student evaluations indicated positive acceptance of the learning strategies used as indicated by over three-fourths agreeing that they would like to see other courses use the audio-tutorial mastery learning program and that their time was used more efficiently. Significant increases (5% level) for the experimental group over the control group also occurred for evaluation items concerning whether students were able to relate the concepts covered to their field of interest. From the results of this study, courses in the Insti- tute of Agricultural Technology that have the prerequisite requirements and then implement an audio—tutorial mastery learning program, might expect increased student achievement and positive student attitudes toward learning strategies. Those courses that are unable to meet the diversity in learn- ing abilities or vocational interests of students would be important candidates for an audio-tutorial mastery learning program. EVALUATION OF AN AUDIO-TUTORIAL MASTER! LEARNING PROGRAM IN SOIL SCIENCE FOR AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY STUDENTS BY 0(‘> Terence H. Cooper A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Crop and Soil Sciences 1975 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author expresses his appreciation to the following who have made this study meaningful, rewarding, and possible: Dr. Henry Foth for his guidance, encouragement, con- structive criticism in reviewing the manuscript, and most importantly, for increasing my interest in the educational process. Dr. Paul Rieke, instructor in Soil Science 051, for his encouragement, interest and help in developing the course materials. Dr. Larry Alexander, Dr. John Shickluna and Dr. Roy Mecklenburg who assisted throughout my graduate studies and served on my graduate committee. The Department of Crop and Soil Sciences and the Educational Development Program who provided financial support for this study. My daughters, Amy and Jennifer, who gave up their time with their Dad so that he could complete his studies. My wife, Sue, for her ever present encouragement, sacrifice and love. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vii LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Audio-Tutorial and Individualized Instruction. . 4 Behavioral Objectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Mastery Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ll PROCEDURES 0 D C O O O O U 0 O D I I O O I D O I C I O O l 9 Institute of Agricultural Technology . . . . . . 19 Organization of the Lecture—Laboratory Soil Science 051 in 1972 and 1973 . . . . 21 Organization of the Audio-Tutorial Soil Science 051 in 1974. . . . . . . . . 22 Organization of the Audio-Tutorial Soil Science 051 in 1975. . . . . . . . . 26 Evaluation Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Evaluation Procedures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Academic Ability Comparisons for Control and Experimental Groups . . . . . . . . . 4O Achievement in Soil Science 051. . . . . 46 Predicted Achievement Versus Actual Achievement. 55 Effects of the Retesting Procedure . . . . . . . 62 Achievement of Behavioral Objectives . . . . . . 66 Evaluating Content Relevancy . . . . . . . . . 69 Time Used in Learning Center Activities. . . . . 72 Student Evaluation Results . . . . . . . . . . . 80 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Page RECOMMENDATIONS. . . BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . 108 APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . 112 iv Table II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. XI. XII. XIII. XIV. LIST OF TABLES Item analysis statistics for summative exams Exam scores for numerical grades . . . . . . Multiple regression equations using indepen- dent variables from 1972-1973. . . . . . . Academic ability measurements. . . . . . . . Previous academic performance. . . . . . . . Grade point averages and grade distributions for Soil Science 051 . . . . . . . . . . . . Mean grade point averages for Soil Science 051 and first term Agricultural Technology, based on academic ability. . . . . . . . . . First term Agricultural Technology grade point averages for achievement levels in Soil Science 051 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Achievement in Soil Science 051 and first term Agricultural Technology for the three majors in the course . . . . . . . . . . . . Predicted and actual achievement for experimental group and actual achievement for control group. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Actual and predicted achievement for three ATGPA levels for the experimental group. . . Changes in student achievement with a re- testing procedure for 1974 and 1975. . . . . Grade distributions for actual 051 grades and grades without a retest. . . . . . . . . Success ratios for behavioral objectives from the SLATES and lectures for the experimental group . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 31 33 35 41 42 46 51 54 56 57 58 63 64 67 Table Page XV. Item means of pre and post-placement train- ing student evaluation for 1973, 1974, and 1975 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 XVI. Time used in learning center activities. . . . . 73 XVII. Evaluation items concerning time spent in learning center activities for 1974 and 1975 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 XVIII. Student Instructional Rating System compo— site profile item means. . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 XIX. Percentile ranks for SIRS composite profile items. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 XX. Composite profile item means (SIRS) with categories based on achievement in Soils 051. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 XXI. Soil Science 051 first and second student evaluations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 XXII. Soil Science 051 final student evaluations . . . 92 XXIII. Summary of the written comments for items used in the final evaluation for 1974-75 . . . . 98 vi LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES Table Page I. Factors that Soil Science 051 students indicated were important in motivating them to study for a particular course . . . . . . . . . 112 II. Michigan State University Student Instruc- tional Rating System (SIRS) statements and item means . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 III. First Soil Science 051 evaluation items and item means, administered the third week of the term in 1974 and 1975 . . . . . . . . . . . 115 IV. Second Soil Science 051 evaluation items and item means, administered the sixth week of the term in 1974 and 1975. . . . . . . . . 116 V. Final Soil Science 051 evaluation items and itemneans,administered the final week of the term in 1974 and 1975. . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 VI. Post-Placement training evaluation items and item means, administered the first week of fall term in 1973 and 1974. . . . . . . . . . . 120 VII. Pretest and posttest means for the experi- mental group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 VIII. Final exam achievement levels. . . . . . . . . . . 122 IX. Actual and predicted achievement for the three majors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Regression line and correlation of ATGPA with HSGPA for control (1972—73) group . . . . . . . . 44 2. Regression line and correlation of ATGPA with HSGPA for experimental (1974-75) group. . . . . . 45 3. Regression line and correlation of ATGPA with 051GD for control (1972-73) group . . . . . . . . 47 4. Regression line and correlation of ATGPA with 051GD for experimental (1974-75) group. . . . . . 48 5. Regression lines and correlations of the high, medium and low ATGPA levels with 051GD. . . . . . 52 6. Regression lines and correlations of 051GD and PRDGD with ATGPA for experimental (1974- 75) group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 7. Regression line and correlation for predicted points with total points. . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 8. Regression lines and correlations of learning center time with Soils 051 grade. . . . . . . . . 75 viii INTRODUCTION Audio—tutorial instructional units have merits in terms of providing a form of individualized learning. With individualized instruction the learning experience is orient- ed toward student performance rather than teacher performance (Goldschmid and Goldschmid, 1972). The rate of learning becomes self paced rather than group paced and instructional materials can be individualized for various segments of the learning population. Mastery learning strategies as described by Block (1971) can also be incorporated with audio-tutorial units to provide increased achievement over courses taught without a mastery learning format (Foth, 1973). Soil Science 051 is an introductory soil science course for two year students in the Institute of Agricultural Tech— nology at Michigan State University. The course is required for majors in Turfgrass Management and Landscape—Nursery programs and as an elective for majors in Commercial Flori- culture. Students in Agricultural Technology programs at Michigan State University have a wide range in capabilities along with differences in psychological and motivational factors (Ecker, 1973). This is also true of the students in Soil Science 051 where previous academic experience ranges from high school grade point averages of 1.5 to students who have completed a college degree. Soil Science 051 also has students with diverse interests since the students come from three widely diverse majors. Studies in Ohio have shown that the two-year agricul— ture student considers placement training and agricultural courses as the two most important factors for job placement after graduation (Iverson gt $1., 1970). In questionnaires conducted by the author, two—year students indicated that the relevancy of the subject matter to their major, along with grades, were the prime motivational factors for studying a particular subject. Therefore, it seemed that in Soil Science 051 which many students deem important for career placement, a concentrated effort was needed to develop better and more efficient instruction in terms of increasing student achieve- ment and supplying topical information. The class size of approximately 100 has made it difficult to provide students with slower learning capabili- ties all of the individualized help required to complete an understanding of the concepts and principles in a convention- al format of two hours of lecture and two hours of laboratory per week. It has also been difficult to provide well-trained graduate teaching assistants with the practical experience necessary to fulfill student needs for topical information in the laboratories. One of the results of having students with different vocational interests and academic backgrounds in the same class was that the traditional lecture—laboratory method of instruction was not versatile enough to meet the needs of the students. For these reasons an audio-tutorial modified mastery learning program was developed for Soil Science 051. This study was designed to evaluate the audio-tutorial mastery learning program in Soil Science 051 relative to: (1) student achievement and student evaluations as compared to the conventional lecture-laboratory program, (2) learning efficiency and student satisfaction, and (3) the feasibility for use in other courses in the Institute of Agricultural Technology. LITERATURE REVIEW One of the basic themes permeating the current educational reform movement is individualization of instruct- ion. This is not new, however, since as early as 1919 the public schools of Winnetka, Illinois, began using a self pacing instructional method with repeated testing of students until mastery was demonstrated (Washburne, 1922). In the years following the Winnetka experiment other programs of individualized instruction were developed in scattered class- rooms and schools throughout the United States and abroad. These early experiments were usually directed toward secondary and elementary schools (Kulik, et 31., 1974). Most of these gradually disappeared for a lack of technology to sustain a successful strategy (Block, 1971). With new technological advances in instructional media, the interest in individualized instruction was renewed again in the early 1960's. Audio—Tutorial and Individualized Instruction The audio-tutorial method of instruction has gained wide acceptance in many academic disciplines since its first appli- cation to biology by Postlethwait (1971) in 1961. By and large the A-T method of teaching has proven to be successful under the right conditions. The original rationale for using audio-tutorial instruction was that of improving efficiency and/or effectiveness of student learning. More recently, A—T instruction has been seen as a way to reduce instruction- al costs for large enrollment courses. Since 1961, there has been considerable development of A-T programs in response to: (l) improving efficiency of student and faculty time; (2) student satiation with conventional large lecture— laboratory models of instruction; and (3) differences in student aptitudes (Educational Development Program, 1973). Audio-tutorial instruction places more responsibility on the learners and requires greater activity and involvement in the learning process. Students in an audio-tutorial learning center are noted for their increased activity and sincerity in studying the materials while at the carrels or in doing related investigations (Stephen, 1971). The role of the teacher also changes from a "disseminator of information" to a “guider of learning experiences" (Lambert, 1970). Some of the learning activities and methods (Postleth- wait, 1971) that audio-tutorial instruction is well suited to provide include: (1) learning at the student's own pace; (2) concentration on subject matter with minimal outside distractions; (3) direct contact with the material being studied by the use of soils, plants, models, and other such devices; (4) appropriatesizediufits of subject matter; (5) use of instructional media best adapted to the nature of the objectives being studied; (6) use of multi-media such as slides, tapes, and movies; and (7) integration of learning activities and situations. An audio-tutorial format can provide individualized learning experiences that more nearly meet the specific learn— ing needs of each student than traditional methods. However, problems may be encountered if some students are not motivated to learn on their own or cannot adjust rapidly enough to the system (Connolly and Sepe, 1972). The majority of students studied by Connolly and Sepe (1972) preferred all the characteristics of individualized instruction except having the responsibility for learning placed on them. This may be due to the traditional practices in Grades K—lZ where students are led to believe that learning is a passive process in which you are not learning unless someone is telling you something (Loughary, 1970). Recent studies on the effectiveness of individualized instruction methods for teaching vocational agriculture in high school have been conducted by McCarley (1969) and McVey (1970). The former study was conducted at four different high schools using an individualized instructional unit con- sisting of four lessons and a review for grain sampling and grading. The effect of teaching by this method was found to be significantly better than the lecture-discussion method. Students acquired more knowledge and skills using a combina- tion of psychomotor and cognitive skills than using cognitive skills alone. Students in the individualized instructional group were more enthusiastic and tried harder regardless of their academic rank. The student evaluation of the individ- ualized instruction unit clustered toward the favorable end of the semantic differential scale. The use of audio-tutorial units on farm credit, animal health, commercial fertilizer, and small engines in 12 high schools in Iowa was studied by McVey (1970). Highly signifi- cant differences were found for pretest and posttest scores between audio-tutorial and control schools. A video-audio self—tutorial, vegetable crops course for four year degree students was studied by Flocker (1972L Results from the two terms studied showed that students truly enjoyed the experience, learned more from this method than from the lecture method and retained the knowledge longer. Similar work in crop science has also been reported by Green, gt a1. (1973). An audio-tutorial system known as Personalized Learning and Narrated Tutorial System (PLANTS) was used. Green reported that students using the audio- tutorial methods learned more than students subjected to traditional methods. In soil science, a successful audio-tutorial program has been reported by Foth (1967). A five credit introductory course with four lectures and a two-hour lab per week was changed to one lecture, a discussion period and a three to four hour audio-tutorial program. Students completed a read- ing assignment, noted objectives and then started the audio— tutorial unit. Conclusions reached were that Structured Learning and Teaching Environments (SLATE) could be developed that produce more learning and that are more personalized. Behavioral Objectives Individualized instruction necessitates the logical sequencing of learning activities and, thus, the inherent demand for instructional objectives. The three main functions of learning objectives are to provide: (1) direction for teaching and curriculum development; (2) guidance in evalua— tion; and (3) facilitation of learning (Duchastel and Merrill, 1969). A learning objective consists of three components: (1) terminal behavior or the expected outcome of instruction; (2) test conditions or the situation in which the student will be required to demonstrate the terminal behavior; and (3) performance standards or the minimum level of performance that will be accepted as evidence that the learner has achieved the objective (Davis, gt gl., 1974). Learning objectives are written in behavioral terms since it is the behavior that will be accepted as evidence that the student has learned. Behavior means any performance or activity that can be observed or recorded such as identifying, drawing, designing, selecting, solving, and evaluating (Briggs, 1970). In this study behavioral objectives are synonymous with learning objectives since when the latter term is used, the objective will have been written in behavioral terms. Perhaps the most important characteristic of a useful learning objective is that it identifies the kind of perform- ance which will be accepted as evidence that the learner has achieved the objective (Mager, 1962). In evaluating individualized instruction a statement describing what the learner is like after completing instruction is needed. With- out the learning objective, assessment of the instructional method cannot occur (Goldschmid and Goldschmid, 1972). In vocational education it is often desirable to describe graduates to prospective employers in performance terms and this also can only be done when learning objectives have been specified and then student achievement has been measured (Drawbaugh, 1971). It seems obvious that student access to learning objectives will facilitate learning (Duchastel and Merrill, 1972). The student can better direct his study if he knows where he is going. By determining exactly what is expected learning objectives would assist students in discriminating between relevant and incidental or illustrative content. Learning objectives may serve a management function by enabling the student to better organize his time and learning experience in accordance with the goals of the course. Learning objectives can also provide some feedback with respect to fulfilling the learning task by providing the student with an estimate of his progress. However, learning objectives will make no difference if the student pays little attention to them. Students must understand how to use 10 learning objectives, which may require more than a short introduction, if they are to have an affect on learning (Duchastel and Merrill, 1972). Research on the effectiveness of student use of learn- ing objectives is contradictory. Blaney and McKie (1969) found a clear advantage in terms of superior posttest achieve— ment for students who had been given learning objectives. They also concluded that learning objectives are more effective than a general introduction. In an empirical review by Duchastel and Merrill (1972), improved posttest scores for studentsgivenlearning objectives were found in only five of ten studies. When learning objectives were coupled with complete learner control of the course, they reported that knowledge of the objectives decreased learning time. Compar- isons of specific learning objectives versus general objectives by Jenkins and Deno (1971) yielded no differences between groups. Dalis (1970), on the other hand, reported superiority in learning for the group given precisely stated learning objectives. Providing students with something the teacher or experimenter terms "objectives" does not guarantee improvement in learning, yet, this does not mean that some kind of pre- instructional information cannot aid the student (Geis, 1972). Jenkins and Deno (1971) noted that a well structured unit which was designed to facilitate the attainment of particular learning objectives may not show differences between groups that have the objectives and those that do not. There may, 11 however, be differences which we cannot detect with the present evaluations used. It seems the value of having learning objectives is in serving as one of the tools in helping instruction attain its stated goals. For individualized instruction programs where learning objectives are required for instructional development and evaluation, an added increase in student achievement may be obtained as a bonus by supplying and encouraging effective use of the learning objectives. Mastery Learning Mastery learning or competency based instruction is a teaching strategy in which the minimum expected level of student achievement is fixed and the relevant instructional variables are manipulated. The instructional model grew out of research by B. F. Skinner, John B. Carroll and Benjamin S. Bloom. Skinner (1954) contended that the learning of any behavior, no matter how complex, rested upon the learning of a sequence of less-complex component behaviors. Theoretically, therefore, by breaking a complex behavior down into a chain of component behaviors and by ensuring student mastery of each link in the chain, it would be possible for any student to master the most complex skills. This model of learning was later modified by Carroll (1963) during his work in foreign language learning. Carroll concluded that the amount of time a student needs to learn a given task under ideal learning conditions is a reflection of some basic characteristics of 12 the student that may be called "aptitude." If instructional time was allowed to vary, then criterion learning levels could be established which most, if not all, students could attain. Variables which cannot be directly represented in terms of time, but which Carroll felt affect the amount of time a student needs, and therefore, the degree of mastery that he will attain are: (l) motivation; (2) quality of instruction; and (3) the student's ability to understand and profit from instruction. If the student lacks motivation and is unwilling to spend the requisite amount of time, he will not attain mastery. The affect of poor quality of instruction interacting with poor ability to understand instruction is to increase the required learning time beyond what would be required under optimal conditions. Poor quality of instruc- tion tends to decrease the students' chances of attaining complete mastery, particularly, for the less able students, because the extra time that would be required is often beyond what the schedule can allow. Bloom (1968) and Keller (1968) integrated the Skinner and Carroll conceptual models into an effective strategy for mastery learning which takes into account individual differen- ces in learners and relates these variations to the teaching process. The mastery learning strategy Bloom (1968) proposed was designed for use in a classroom where the time allowed for learning is relatively fixed. The strategy for mastery learning as described by Block (1971) includes: A 13 (1) organization of the course into small units of instruction with the communication of the learning objectives to the students; (2) opportunities for students to master the learn- ing objectives (usually some kind of individualization includ— ingtfluaopportunity to learn at one's own pace); (3) feedback to the learner (brief diagnostic formative tests over the learning objectives for the unit); (4) opportunity for remedial learning; and (5) summative tests to establish degree of mastery or grade. Formative evaluation provides the information necessary to identify learning weaknesses prior to the completion of instruction in a course segment or unit (Airasian, 1971). The aim is to foster learning mastery by providing data which can direct subsequent corrective teaching and learning. Summative evaluation is grading students according to their achievement of course aims. Those who attain the pre—defined mastery level receive some indication of mastery performance while those who achieve less receive appropriately lower grades. The design process necessary for the development of a mastery strategy (Block, 1971) should include the following steps: 1. Determine mastery model feasibility. Courses where students have marked differences in back- ground and interest, lack motivation, show wide variability in rate of acquisition, demonstrate poor performance and complain about ineffective l4 instruction are appropriate candidates for the mastery model. Criteria for determining if the course content lends itself to a mastery model would include courses with a hierarchical nature, with too much content for the allotted time, where content is difficult and time consuming and where explicit objectives and mastery levels can be established. Write behavioral objectives for the course and the instructional units. Develop mastery diagnostic examinations and scoring procedures. Tests must be criterion referenced. Their validity is based on whether they really test what is taught and not whether they differentiate poor students from good students. Diagnostic tests must not assess student achievement on a "curve" but against a fixed standard. Write an outline of subject matter material so that it is arranged in a sequential order. Develop material and student workbooks. The work- book may include the objectives, test items, diagrams, graphs or other information to augment the expository information presented. In many cases the mastery materials augment conventional instructional methods, yet, the concept of mastery is emphasized by means of diagnostic examinations 15 and tutorial assistance or remediation for those not achieving mastery. 6. Obtain learning center facilities and obtain and train tutors. A critical component in a mastery model is trained tutors to provide assistance for those who need remediation and a location for this activity to occur. Alternative sources for learning correctives include alternative textbooks, programmed instruction, academic games or puzzles and reteaching. 7. Provide time and prepare for a student orientation. Students should be told of the strategy and goals and the methods to be used in attaining them. This is necessary since a number of students are so convinced they cannot learn to high levels that they are unwilling to give the feedback/correction procedures a chance to promote their learning. The orientation period, combined with encourage- ment, support, and positive evidence of learning success, especially very early in the subject, will develop in students the belief that they can learn and the intrinsic motivation to learn. The results of forty studies which incorporated the mastery model were summarized by Block (1971). These studies were conducted at all levels from elementary school through graduate education, in a number of fields and with varying student-teacher ratios. Approximately three-fourths of the 16 students learning under mastery conditions achieved to the same level as the top one-fourth under the conventional, group-based instructional conditions. This was often in- creased to 90% where refinement of the mastery strategy occurred. Students in mastery programs also exhibited marked increases in interest and attitude toward the subject matter compared to non-mastery students. Bloom (1968) has stated that when students are successful in learning, in general, their attitudes will be favorable toward learning. In an introductory agronomy course using the PLANTS audio-tutorial format described earlier, a minimum level of achievement was introduced (Stamp, gt gl., 1973). Student response to the overall system of instruction was improved compared to the same system of instruction before establishing the minimum level of achievement grading. Student—instructor contact was enhanced and the effectiveness of PLANTS was improved. Acceptance of the system was not dependent upon or related to the relative performance of the student but was dependent upon the method of instruction. A mastery learning program was integrated into a soil science course with an audio—tutorial format by Foth (1973). Increases in student achievement resulted from implementing mastery strategies. Also a marked improvement in student response on the all-university rating form was noted along with the increases in the amount of time and effort spent on the course. Fifty-eight percent of the students strongly 17 agreed and 38% agreed that they would like to see mastery learning techniques used in other courses. Wentling (1971) has reported superior mean achievement scores for both immediate achievement and retention with a mastery learning program in a high school automotive mechanics course. However, the amount of time spent on instruction was 50% greater for the mastery program. Wentling suggested that practical decisions involving trades of time for achievement may be needed with the mastery format where students cannot proceed until a given level of mastery is achieved. The mastery strategy has proven itself as a mechanism for improving student learning and attitudes. However, in many situations the amount of time required for the slow learners to obtain mastery is not available. In some cases, the student is often unwilling to spend the additional time required due to other course work, outside activities or personal motivation and he thus achieves less. In vocational education it is the responsibility of the instructor to manage the learning situation so that the slow learner can master most of the learning objectives and have some saleable skills at the end of a period of instruction (Bjorkquist, 1971). The true evaluation of a vocational graduate will not come by exhibiting mastery of learning objectives, but will come when he has to prove his worth in the "world of work." However, the former should certainly aid in the latter. The current tendency in instructional evaluation appears to be determination of the most effective instructional 18 strategy to achieve a given set of objectives for an individ- ual student (Impellitteri and Finch, 1972). This encompasses both the areas of individualized instruction and mastery learning research which have been concerned with experimenta- tion eventually leading to increased effectiveness in individualized instruction. The research reviewed here, however, has not considered the technical agriculture student in the university community who is often found lacking in maturity, educational background, experience and proper attitudes toward new ideas (Groves, 1972). They may not possess as much self confidence or individual independence as four—year students and, therefore, may find individualized instruction perplexing. However, due to the importance of their training, diversification in back- grounds and willingness to learn relevant information in their major areas, they are certainly qualified candidates for research with individualized instruction and mastery learning strategies. This study was conducted to determine the effectiveness of an audio-tutorial, individualized learning program with a modified mastery learning format in soil science for two-year vocational students in Turfgrass Management, Landscape-Nursery and Commercial Floriculture at Michigan State University. PROCEDURES This section deals with procedures used to implement the evaluation of an audio—tutorial modified mastery learning format for a basic soil science course in the Institute of Agricultural Technology at Michigan State University. It contains six subsections: (1) the Institute of Agricultural Technology, (2) organization of the lecture-laboratory Soil Science 051 in 1972 and 1973, (3) organization of the audio- tutorial Soil Science 051 in 1974, (4) organization of the audio-tutorial Soil Science 051 in 1975, (5) evaluation instruments, and (6) evaluation procedures. Institute of Agricultural Technolggy The population for this study consisted of students in the Institute of Agricultural Technology at Michigan State University who enrolled in Soil Science 051 during the years 1972-1975. The Institute of Agricultural Technology offers two-year technical programs and is part of the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Programs in production agriculture have been offered since 1894. Eight off-farm programs were added since 1946 including Commercial Floricul- ture, Landscape and Nursery, Turfgrass Management, Elevator and Farm Supply, Soil and Chemical Technology: Electrical 19 20 Technology for Agriculture, Power Equipment Technology, and Animal Technology. Soil Science 051 is an elective for Commercial Flori- culture students and is required for students in Landscape- Nursery and Turfgrass Management. Commercial Floriculture students prepare for jobs as commercial greenhouse managers, wholesale operators or as floral designers and sales persons in retail flower shops. Landscape-Nursery graduates work as owners, managers, foremen or salesmen in commercial landscape and nursery firms, as well as superintendents of private estates, parks, cemeteries and industrial landscapes. Turf- grass graduates supervise and manage golf courses, parks, athletic fields, industrial grounds, highway road sides and commercial lawn services, as well as, salesmen of commercial turf supplies. Agricultural Technology programs for the first year include two terms of classroom instruction which begin the third week of September and end the third week in March. From April to September, students are on supervised placement training to gain job experience in their particular field of interest. Students return to campus in September of the second year for two terms of instruction to complete their program. A typical course program for students is approximate- ly one-third in general education, one-third in business management and one-third in technical courses. Soil Science 051 is taken during the second term of the first year. 21 The present admissions policy of the Institute requires that the prospective student be a high school graduate and/or have a recommendation from an employer. Admission is based on the high school record, high school counselor's recommenda- tion and, in some cases, a personal interview. Organization of the Lecture-Laboratory Soil Science 051 in 1972 and 1973 Soil Science 051, a three-credit course, was selected for modification to an audio-tutorial program with a modified mastery learning format for the following reasons: (1) wide range of learning aptitudes among students, (2) three divergent interest groups within the class (turfgrass, land- scape-nursery and commercial floriculture), (3) large class size (approximately 100 students), (4) lack of well trained graduate teaching assistants who could provide the topical information desired in the laboratories, (5) lack of individ- ualized help for slow learning students, and (6) a readily available learning center facility. Soil Science 051 during 1972 and 1973 had two hours of lecture and two hours of laboratory per week. Students were given a topical outline the first day of class containing the objectives for the term. There were about sixteen lectures in which 75% of the content was presented with the use of an overhead projector. The remaining content was presented in the laboratory sections. There were hour exams during the fifth and eighth weeks and a comprehensive exam in the final exam week. 1‘! ‘n‘ 22 Each two—hour laboratory section consisted of fifteen to thirty students who were generally in the same major, however, this was not true in all cases. The text for the laboratory was Laboratory Manual for Introductory Soil Science (Foth, gt gt., 1969). Laboratory design and content presenta- tion varied between laboratory instructors. A typical lab consisted of a fifteen minute quiz followed by a question and discussion period. Instructions were then given for the week's laboratory exercise along with any required demonstra— tions. The actual time students worked on their experiments in groups of three or four was 30 to 40 minutes per week. Course achievement was determined by tests given in the lecture, laboratory and, in some cases, from homework assignments given in the laboratory. Lecture and laboratory were weighed equally in determining course grades that were curved. Organization of the Audio-Tutorial Soil Science 051 in 1974 Implementing an audio—tutorial modified mastery learn- ing program for Soil Science 051 required: (1) development of nine audio-tutorial (Structured Learning and Teaching Environments or SLATES) units to replace the scheduled laboratory; (2) development of 21 relevant information audio- tutorial units to accompany the first seven SLATE units; (3) production of a student workbook for the SLATE program containing behavioral objectives, reading assignments, learn- ing center procedures, questions and problems with answers, 23 and self test items; (4) development of lecture outlines with behavioral objectives and self test items to be included in the workbook; (5) addition of one lecture hour per week to facilitate a retesting procedure for remediation; and (6) organization of the SLATES and lectures into five units for summative testing purposes. The mastery model used (Foth, 1973) did not require students to achieve to a prede- termined level before proceeding to another unit. Development of the first seven SLATE units began in the summer of 1973. Since the content desired for these SLATES was similar to that used in Soil Science 210 (Foth, 1967, 1973), only minor modifications were needed to adapt 210 SLATES for Soil Science 051. Modifications included revision of behavioral objectives, supplying additional information in the student workbook and explaining deletions or additions to the audio-tutorial segment of each SLATE. The tape and slide sets from Soil Science 210 were used intact. The Soil Science 051 SLATES essentially covered the subject matter previously presented in the conventional laboratories. In order to supply relevant information to the three majors concerning the topics covered in the SLATE units, an additional SLATE was prepared. This was called a Relevant Information SLATE or RIS. It was 10 to 15 minutes long, as compared to 30 minutes for the 210 SLATE, and contained relevant information as to how the concepts and principles covered in the modified 210 SLATES related to turfgrass or 24 landscape-nursery or floriculture areas. A separate unit in the workbook contained behavioral objectives, procedural out- line and self test items for each RIS. For the last two weeks of the term two new SLATE units were developed for each major since there were none appropriate from Soil Science 210 to cover fertilizers and soil sampling. These units were of similar format and incorporated the R18 information. Due to limited number of learning center carrels and limited copies of tapes and slide sets, students were sched- uled one hour per week in the learning center. Agricultural Technology students have "full" class schedules with only two or three free hours during the week. The scheduled time reduced student waiting and allowed students an opportunity to better plan their week's activities. There were, however, many free periods during the week, in the evenings and on Saturdays, when students were able to use the learning center for additional study on a non—scheduled basis. The lectures of Soil Science 051 were on Monday, Wed- nesday, and Friday. Lecture outlines containing behavioral objectives and self tests for each of five units were included in the workbook. The lecture was used to emphasize new concepts and review content of the SLATE program that was known to be difficult. A special session for those students desiring additional help was held from seven to nine p.m. on the day preceeding the "first attempt" or offering of the summative exams. 25 Summative examinations to determine the level of mastery or grade were given for each of the five units at two week intervals. The first summative exam was given after one SLATE unit and three lectures in order to get the students quickly involved in the program. For the remainder of the term, exams were given every other Friday with the retest the following Monday. Exams were criterion referenced to test the objectives covered from the SLATES and lectures. Grades were determined by using a straight scale. Exams consisted of 25 multiple choice (four or five option) questions with approximately 60% of the questions coming from objectives covered in the SLATES and 40% from objectives covered in the lecture. Retest summative exams covered the same objectives but consisted of entirely new questions of similar difficulty. Students had the option of not taking a retest if they were satisfied with their score on the first exam. If they elected to take a retest, only the highest score of the two was used to determine the grade. A final exam was given that consisted of ten questions from each of the five units. The final exam was weighted one-sixth of the course grade. Soil Science 051 activities of a typical student for a two week period might consist of the following: (1) on Monday attend lecture to take a retest over Unit III since the student only achieved 18 out of 25 on Friday; (2) on Tuesday begin reading assignments for Unit IV and begin the SLATE for the week (SLATE activities include: (a) look at 26 behavioral objectives; (b) complete SLATE reading assignment; (c) begin audio-tutorial, view displays, participate in in— vestigations and perform experiments; (d) complete RIS when finished with modified Soil Science 210 SLATE: (e) complete questions, problems and self tests after returning to the dorm); (3) on Wednesday attend lecture; (4) on Friday attend lecture; (5) on Monday attend lecture and finish Unit IV reading assignment; (6) on Tuesday visit the learning center to review the SLATE from last week and begin the SLATE for this week; (7) on Wednesday attend lecture and visit the learning center in the evening to finish the SLATE for this week and ask the tutor questions; (8) on Thursday attend the help session to ask a few questions; and (9) on Friday take exam on Unit IV and achieve a 22 and, therefore, decide to sleep in on Monday. Organization of the Audio-Tutorial Soil Science 051 in 1975 Operation of Soil Science 051 in 1975 was essentially the same as in 1974 except for the changes in SLATE structure, learning center hardware and the lecture hour and room. During the summer of 1974 the SLATE units used in Winter 1974 were modified to include the information previously contained in the RIS. This was done to decrease the total amount of time required in the learning center and to decrease the dependency on Soil Science 210 materials. This was done only for the SLATES used during the first seven weeks because SLATES eight and nine had been developed in this manner the 27 previous year. The workbook was altered to account for these changes, however, the behavioral objectives were unchanged. Reading assignments in a previously assigned text were included in the workbook at the beginning of each SLATE unit. This was done for convenience and to reduce the financial burden to the student. The result was a workbook that con- tained all the materials for the course including SLATE units, lecture outlines, reading assignments and self tests. In 1975 the learning center was moved and remodeled. Changes were made in the audio-tutorial equipment and checking- in procedures. In 1974 students checked into the learning center by placing a time card in the appropriate carrel slot. Tapes and slides were located in the carrels along with the appropriate equipment. In 1975 students checked into the learning center by filling out a time card and receiving the appropriate tapes and slides, depending on their major, from the tutor on duty. The carrel contained the audio-tutorial equipment (a Caramate cassette player-projector) and any other materials needed for that week's SLATE. Changes in the learning center were not deemed great enough to affect this study. The learning center was bright in color, more pleasant, yet, still served the same functions as well as, or better than in previous years. The lecture hour and room were changed to resolve a conflict in instructors' schedules. In 1974 the lecture hour was from 9:10-10:00 a.m. and in 1975 from 8:00-8:50 a.m. This earlier hour brought forth some complaints by students, 28 however, no differences were observed between years regarding attention during lecture or attendance. The remaining components and methods used in 1975 for Soil Science 051 were the same as in 1974. Activities for the week as described for 1974 would be the same except the R18 was now incorporated into all of the SLATES for each major. Evaluation Instruments The variables used to evaluate this study consisted of: (1) high school grade point average, (2) scores on selected orientation placement exams, (3) grade point average for the first term in the Agricultural Technology Program, (4) total exam points accumulated in Soil Science 051, (5) course grade achieved in Soil Science 051, (6) Soil Science pretest scores, (7) final exam or posttest score, (8) grade achieved if no retests had been taken, (9) predict- ed grades and predicted exam points, (10) success ratios for objectives, (11) Michigan State University Student Instructional Rating Form and, (12) Soil Science 051 student evaluation. High school grade point averages (HSGPA) were obtained from the students' files in the Institute of Agricultural Technology. They are based on performance in high school college preparation classes such as english, science, math, and history. The HSGPA excludes all classes outside the basic program such as music, physical education, vocational agriculture, and shop. 29 Students who attended an early orientation for the Agricultural Technology Program were given a variety of tests to better assess their entrance level abilities and to use for placement into courses. The scores selected for use in this study were obtained from the students' files. The cooperative reading exam is a composite of scores on reading vocabulary, reading comprehension, and total reading score. Reading vocabulary scores (RDVOC) are based on the ability of the student to look at a word and select from a list of four words or phrases the one which has most nearly the same meaning. Reading comprehension (RDCOMP) scores are based on ability to read a passage and then recall a fact or, in more complex questions, to interpret what has been read. The total reading score (RDTOT) is based on the addition of the above two plus a score from a speed reading test. The Differential Aptitude scores (DAT) (or mechanical reasoning) represents the student's comparative strength or aptitude for conceptualizing and interpreting spatial and mechanical rela- tionships. This may be regarded as one aspect of intelligence, if intelligence is broadly defined. The math scores (MATH) represent a combined ability in arithmetic and algebra. This exam was inadvertently not given in 1975. The algebra scores (ALG) represent a knowledge of the concepts covered in high school algebra. The chemistry (CHEM) scores represent a test based primarily on high school chemistry with emphasis on stoichiometry, gas laws, and atomic theory. 30 The first term agricultural technology grade point average (ATGPA) was based on the grades received by the student during the term prior to taking Soil Science 051. The grade point average achieved by students in college pro— grams (COLGPA) other than Agricultural Technology, such as junior college or four year schools, was obtained from student files. The remaining variables for evaluations consisted of achievement in Soil Science 051, student evaluations and time spent in the learning center. Total points (TOTPTS) for 1972 and 1973 were the points accumulated on the two lecture exams and the final, while TOTPTS for 1974 and 1975 were the sum of the highest scores from each of five summative exams plus the final exam. TOTPTS for all years were based on a total of 150. Comparisons of the summative exams between 1974 and 1975 were made for item analysis statistics consisting of the mean, mean item difficulty and mean item discrimination (Table I). Mean item difficulty is the proportion of incorrect answers for the total group. Mean item discrimination is the difference between the upper 27% and the lower 27% who answered a question correctly. The first attempt exams had a slightly lower mean, and a higher average mean item difficulty in 1975 as compared to 1974. The retests results were approximately the same in 1974 and 1975. Since differences between years were not significant (5% level), examinations were judged to be 31 om mu mm ma a.ma ~.o~ sexm amcam an em em on m.wa a.ma mm mm am mm m.sa e.ma msmxw 0>aw HON ommuo>< mm mm mm mm «.ma m.ma oe em mm om N.ea e.sa m mm mm mm em m.sa o.ma em mm mm mm s.ea e.ma e on an an mm m.sa «.ma mm em mm ON a.sa a.o~ m an am mm mm a.ma a.ma em am am am ~.sa a.ma N am an on mm a.o~ m.ma am mm mm em m.ea o.ma a mama «sea mama esma mama esma mama esma msea esma mama esma coaumeaeanomae seasoaaaae cums eoaumeasauomae Nuasoammae cams sonssz EOHH CMOE EOflfl mm OE EOHH GMOE EOHM COTE 5—me ummuom ummwuum umuam .mfimxo m>aumsfidm How moaHMflumum mamwamcm EouH .H wanna 32 similar for 1974 and 1975. The average mean, mean item difficulty and mean item discrimination for exams given in 1972 and 1973 were 19.5, 22 and 30, respectively. On the average, the exams used in the audio tutorial mastery learn- ing program were, at least, as difficult or slightly more difficult than the exams used in the lecture—laboratory pro— gram. The grade achieved (051GD) for 1972 and 1973 was the actual final grade recorded by the instructor based on points from the lecture and laboratory and then placed on a curve. The OSlGD for 1974 and 1975 was determined by comparing the TOTPTS with a predetermined grading scale and selecting the appropriate grade from 0.0 to 4.0 with intervals of .5. The grading scale used for 1974 and 1975 was determined by looking at the relationship between percentage of points achieved in lecture exams to the grade received in 1972 and 1973. From Table II it can be seen that the grading scale for 1974 and 1975 was very similar to that used in 1972 and 1973. 33 Table II. Exam scores for numerical grades. Numerical Lecture exams Summative exams grade 1972 1973 1974 and 1975 Percent 4.0 87 87 86 3.5 81 83 82 3.0 78 77 78 2.5 73 69 74 2.0 68 65 70 1.5 65 61 66 1.0 62 60 62 Pretest scores (PRTST) were determined for 1974 and 1975 from a seven question pretest based on selected object— ivesIthat were covered during the term. The posttest score (PSTST) was the 50 question comprehensive final exam score based on 25 possible points for 1974 and 1975. For comparison purposes final exam scores for 1972 and 1973 were converted to a percentage from a possible 35 points. The grade without retests (GDNRT) was determined for 1974 and 1975 by adding the first attempt or only attempt on the five summative exams with the final exam score and then using the 1974 and 1975 grading scale. Predicted grades (PRDGD) and predicted points (PRDPTS) for 1974 and 1975 were determined from a multiple regression equation. Independent predictor variables selected for possible use in the equation were the 1972 and 1973 HSGPA, ATGPA and orientation exam scores. Knoblauch (1973) reported that by using these predictor variables 53% of the variation 34 in grade point averages could be explained for Agricultural Technology students in Agricultural Production. The results of using least squares regression in a step-wise routine to determine the equation which best predicts achievement in Soil Science 051 for 1972 and 1973 are shown in Table III. From the R2 values (coefficient of determination) equations one and three account for 69% and 68% respectivelx of the variation in 051GD, and equation two accounts for 66% of the variation in total points. Since equation three was simpler to use, did not alter the precision of the estimate and accounted for nearly the same amount of variation, it was used to predict the grades for 1974 and 1975 students as if the lecture—laboratory program had been used. Success ratios for objectives were made by determining the number of students answering correctly the questions per- taining to specific objectives. The number obtained represents the average percentage of students who obtained that particular objective. These were averaged for the five units and the entire course. The all—university Student Instructional Rating System (SIRS) was given at the end of the term in all years. The SIRS is designed to allow instructors to determine what attitudes their students hold toward various aspects of in- struction. It consists of twenty—one statements about class instruction. The statements are rated by the student using: (1) strongly agree, (2) agree, (3) neutral, (4) disagree, and (5) strongly disagree. The SIRS report indicates the 35 .OH.O EMS». .HOHMOHU OflumHu—umuvm UMOUIh Our map compo uoc mums moaamaam> asacawan one coauoaop new mmumoaocmo no: one? was was mmwa< .dmwmm moaQMaum> mam£3 ocausoa coauaccm omazImoum m ca cows mos scammmumou moumswm umMOAN .ocausoa GOauoaoo meBImoum m ca poms no: coammoumou moamsvm unmoq+ .oaumaumum umouIm on» mo oocmoamaamam on» on Homo“ mmmosusmumm ca mmusmam mafia Ramo.ov was No.o I Amoco.ov aaoo.ov mm.o wm.o Nw.o Dm No.o + Amoco.ov Aaoo.ov mm.o am.o mm.o sawed mo.a + «10mm om.o + mmm.o I +QOamo a soauma>oa Enos mannanm> HonEsz oampcmum mm a emucoawwooo can moanmaum> ucmumcoo unopcwmwa coaucsvm .mnaalmhma Eoum mmaQMaam> ucwucommpcw mswms msoHumswo newmmmumou OHQHUHSZ .HHH manna 36 percentage of students who selected each response and the mean for the item. Low mean values indicate agreement with a statement and high mean values indicate disagreement. The report also groups questions into composite profile items of instructor involvement, student interest, student-instructor interaction, course demands and course organization. The SIRS statements are in Appendix Table II. Additional evaluation items were used with the SIRS forms in 1973 for comparison purposes with the Soil Science 051 student evaluation used in 1974 and 1975. The Soil Science 051 evaluation was administered in three parts. The first evaluation was given the third week of classes to determine problems encountered by students and their first impressions of the instructional strategies. The second evaluation was given the sixth week of class to determine student problems at that time and their feelings to date. The final evaluation was given the last week of classes at the same time as the SIRS evaluation. An evaluation was also given to 1973 and 1974 students after they returned from placement training dur- ing the first week of fall term. The Soil Science 051 student evaluation and post-placement training evaluation items are in Appendix Tables III, IV, V and VI. The average time spent in the learning center each week was determined from time cards the students used when checking in and out of the learning center. 37 Evaluation Procedures Data collected with the evaluation instruments were used to compare differences between 1972, 1973 (traditional lecture-laboratory years or control group) and 1974, 1975 (audio-tutorial mastery learning years or experimental group). This method had previously been used by Keller (1968). Var- iables used were HSGPA, selected orientation exam scores, ATGPA, COLGPA, PSTST, TOTPTS, and 051GD. Within the experi- mental group comparisons were made for PRDGD and GDNRT with 051GD, and PRDPTS with TOTPTS. Differences between means were determined using student's t test. Simple correlations were computed for HSGPA with ATGPA and ATGPA with 05160. The 051GD distributions for control and experimental groups were recorded, along with grade distributions for the predicted grades and the grades without a retest. The grade without a retest was further studied by determining the effect of the retesting procedure on increased achievement, particularly, for recognition and problem solving questions. ATGPA was divided into high (4.0-3.5), medium (3.49-2.50), and low (2.49-0.0) categories for comparisons of the control group with the experimental group in terms of 051GD and 051 grade distributions. Comparisons were also made within the experimental group for 051GD with PRDGD and TOTPTS with PRDPTS. The 051GD was similarly divided into high (4.0), medium (3.5-3.0), and low (2.5-0.0) categories for comparisons of the control group with the experimental 38 group in terms of ATGPA, and within the experimental group for OSlGD with PRDGD and TOTPTS with PRDPTS. Comparisons were made between the three majors (Turf- grass, Landscape-Nursery and Floriculture) in terms of ATGPA, OSlGD, PRDGD and 051 grade distributions. Comparisons of 051 grade distributions were also made between the control group and experimental group for those students with less than a 2.00 HSGPA. Variables within the experimental group that were measures of achievement and indirect measures of the experi- ment's success included the difference between the pretest and posttest scores or gain and the success ratios for the objectives. Comparison of objective success ratios for Soil Science 051 with Soil Science 210 were also made. The relationship between learning center time and OSlGD was determined and comparisons were made between 1974 and 1975. The use of student evaluations for determining effective teaching has substantial support (Foth, 1972). Coustin, Greenough and Menges (1971), concluded that student rating of instructors are generally found to be: (1) stable, (2) internally reliable, and (3) valid with respect to many criteria of teaching effectiveness. With the results from the SIRS evaluation, comparisons were made between experi- mental and control groups for some individual questions and composite profile items of: instructor involvement, student interest, student-instructor interaction, course demands and course organization. Comparison of the SIRS evaluation was 39 also made for categories of students based on achievement in Soil Science 051 and major in the course. A comparison between the control and experimental groups was also made with the post-placement training evaluation. The first, second, and final Soil Science 051 evaluations, prepared by the author, were used for compari- sons between 1974 and 1975 for estimating teaching effective- ness and for assessing the student's response to the instructional strategies used. The final evaluation was also divided into categories for determining evaluation differen- ces based on achievement in Soil Science 051 and majors. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Academic Ability Comparisons for Control and Experimental Groups Before determining differences in Soil Science 051 achievement between the control (1972 and 1973) and experiment- al (1974 and 1975) groups, I attempted to determine if the groups differed in academic ability. Measures of academic ability were high school grade point average (HSGPA), first term Agricultural Technology grade point average (ATGPA), and orientation test scores consisting of: reading vocabulary (RDVOC), reading comprehension (RDCOMP), reading total (RDTOT), differential aptitude (DAT), algebra (ALG), mathematics (MATH), and chemistry (CHEM). Academic ability data are shown in Table IV. The lower chemistry mean for the experimental group would indicate less background in this area. However, this was not considered a significant factor in this study since most students took an introductory chemistry course before taking Soil Science 051. The experimental group also has a higher HSGPA. During the last few years there has been a substantial increase in the number of applicants in Agricultural Technology programs while the number of students selected has remained constant. 40 41 .umou u m.usopsum usams ao>ma ma onu um amucmEaammxo Eoum usoammmwo haucmoamacmams mm.~ mm.~ vm hm m.m am oma mma mma amusmsaammxm mm.m «vN.N emm mm m.m mm «ma «ma hma aouusoo «mass dmomm Smmu mad: wa< Eda Boaam mzooam Uo>am mommao>m . mmuoom umou coaumucoauo coo: macaw ucaom oomum coo: .mucmfiousmmoe Suwaflnm owEocmod .>H manna 42 The HSGPA is most often used in selecting students, and this variable has had a steady increase over the last four years due to fewer students being selected with a low HSGPA. This trend is shown in Table V. . . + Table V. Prev1ous academic performance. Number of stu- Groups Mean grade point averages dents in Soil HSGPA ATGPA COLGPA Science 051 Control 1972 2.19 a* (81) 2.87 (91) 2.02 (6) 104 1973 2.3121 (79) 2.88 (89) 2.54 (18) 89 Experimental 1974 2.4913 (86) 2.95 (88) 2.57 (38) 99 1975 2.551) (80) 2.97 (84) 2.38 (51) 94 *Means with the same letter in a column are not significantly different at the 5% level using student's t test. + I . Numbers 1n parentheses are percentage of students 1n mean. Another trend in Table V is the increase in the per— centage of students who have had previous college experience before beginning the Agricultural Technology program. This has increased from 6% in 1973 to 51% in 1975. Since many students are not selected when they first apply to a program, due to the large number of applicants, they are encouraged to attend a junior college and re-apply to a program the follow- ing year. However, neither the rise in HSGPA nor the increase in students with college experience is related to the ATGPA and orientation test scores. These findings are 43 significant since other researchers have reported that the first grades a student earns at a particular institution are the best predictors of future achievement at that institution (Keefer, 1968). Students with similar ATGPA, therefore, can be expected to have similar academic abilities or academic success in the future, even though there are differences in HSGPA. Similar academic abilities for the control and experi- mental groups is further substantiated by data in Figures 1 and 2. The correlations (r) of the ATGPA with HSGPA for the control and experimental groups are significantly different (5% level). The coefficient of determination (R2) increased from 11% for the control group to 29% for the experimental group. The lower HSGPA was not as good an indicator of academic ability since it only explained 11% of the variabili- ty in the ATGPA while the higher HSGPA explained 29%. Students in the control performed better in the Agricultural Technology program than indicated by their HSGPA. Due to the differences in correlations of HSGPA with ATGPA, the fact that there were not significant differences in ATGPA, which is the best predictor of future achievement, and no differences in all but the CHEM orientation test scores, the students in the control group were considered comparable in academic ability to the students in the experimental group. 44 4.0 - 3.0 " 3 °..,. . : 42 ' - m (D H O 2 o 2.0 -— m n m -a m 1.0 -— y = 0.31x + 1.35 r2= 0.34 0.0 _} R = 0.11 l L l l l 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Ag. Tech. GPA Figure 1. Regression line and correlation of ATGPA with HSGPA for control (1972-73) group. 45 High School GPA y = 0.48x + 1.09 r = 0.54 R2: 0.29 0.0 L. L, l l I l 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Ag. Tech. GPA Figure 2. Regression line and correlation of ATGPA with HSGPA for experimental (1974-75) group. 46 Achievement in Soil Science 051 The Soil Science 051 grade point averages and grade distributions are shown in Table VI for the control and experimental groups. The experimental mean was significantly higher (5% level) than the control and there was an increase in the percentage of 4.0 grades with corresponding decreases in the 2.5 to 0.0 categories for the experimental group as compared to the control. The audio-tutorial mastery learning method was better than the lecture—laboratory method for increasing student achievement and, thereby, increasing learning. Table VI. Grade point averages and grade distributions for Soil Science 051. Group N ofer Mean Grade distributions Students GPA 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.0 Control 193 2.80* 19 15 20 23 ll 7 4 1 Experimental 193 3.13 37 14 18 12 13 5 1 0 *Significantly different from experimental group at the 5% level using student's t test. The relationship between ATGPA and Soil Science 051 grade (051GD) was also changed as evidenced by the correlation for the experimental group (.79) being significantly higher (5% level) than the correlation for the control (.67) as shown in Figures 3 and 4. From the R2 value 62% of the variability 47 4.0 L 3.0 - 0) 'O (U u 0 {A 2.0 — O U) H -H O U) 1.0 '- 000 - I 0.0 Ag. Tech GPA Figure 3. Regression line and correlation of ATGPA with 051GD for control (1972-73) group. Soils 051 Grade Figure 4. 48 4o 0 - 0 o o oo. 00...-.- c..- 3.0 - 2.0I- l.0~— y = 0.92x + .40 r = 0.67 R2= 0.45 0.0Ib l L I l l 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Ag. Tech. GPA Regression line and correlation of ATGPA with 051GD for experimental (1974-75) group. 49 in 051GD was explained by variability in ATGPA for the control group. This was reduced to 45% with the experimental's audio- tutorial mastery learning program. Theoretically, the correlation would be reduced to zero with unlimited time available and ideal instruction. A pretest exam representing seven of the 79 behavioral objectives used in Soil Science 051 was administered the first day of classes to the experimental group. The pretest results indicated no differences in entering soil science knowledge between achievement levels based on 05160 or majors (Appendix Table VII). The gain, or the difference between the posttest (final exam) and pretest, primarily reflected posttest score differences since there were no differences in pretest scores. The posttest mean for students with an 051GD of 2.5 or less was significantly lower (5% level) than those who achieved a 2.5 or greater. Low achievement in the course was reflected in the comprehensive final exam. Within the experimental group posttest scores between majors were not significantly different (5% level). Since the final exams were different, comparisons for achievement on final exams between the control and experi- mental groups were relative. However, increases in student achievement are noted for the experimental group, since 15% of the students achieved to a greater level than in the control group (Appendix Table VIII). In order to determine where increases in Soil Science 051 achievement occurred, grade point averages were compared 50 between the control and experimental groups for the different academic ability levels, as determined by first term Agricul- tural Technology grade point average (ATGPA). The ATGPA categories selected were high (4.0-3.5), medium (3.49-2.5), and low (2.49-0.0). Significant increases (5% level) in 051GD (Table VII) between the experimental and control are noted for the medium and low ATGPA levels. The instructional strategies used in 1974 and 1975 enabled students in the medium and low ATGPA levels to increase in achievement over their 1972 and 1973 counterparts. In the low ATGPA level of the control group and medium ATGPA level of the experimental group there were also significant differences (5% level) between the 051GD and mean ATGPA. However, for the control group the 051 performance was lower than the ATGPA, while for the experimental group the 051 performance was higher. The regression lines of ATGPA with 051GD for the high, medium, and low ATGPA levels in Figure 5 show that grades for the experimental group were greater than the control group for each level. The correlations for the experimental groups high (.21), medium (.31), and low (.28) ATGPA levels also indicate less association of the 051GD with the ATGPA for each level than in the control group. In each ATGPA level a shift in the percentage of stu- dents out of lower Soil Science 051 grades into higher grades was noted for the experimental group when compared to the control. For the medium ATGPA level the percentage of 51 .umme a m.uemeeum seams am>ma am pm «mo .eume .ee some aemuouaae sapeeoamaemame. .umou u m.ucocsum means am>ma mm um Housmawummxw Eoum unoammwac wausmoamwcmama mm HH.N m~.N amusmfiwammxm mm HH.N ««.%mm.H HOHHGOU o.oImv.~ mm mm.~ «som.m amusm8«ammxm mm mm.m «mm.m aoaucou om.NImv.m mm m>.m om.m amvcmfiaammxm ma mn.m on.m HOHHGOU m.mlo.¢ OA dmwfid zuw3 mucmosum mo mmmucmoumm mmmao>¢ usaom opwaw . .huaawnm anopmom so comma .mmoHocnoma amusuasoaums shop umuam can amo cocoaom aaom Mom mommuw>m usaom opmum smmz .HH> manna Soils 051 Grade Figure 5. 52 4.0“- 3.0" 2.0-— 1.0 '— Control --------- Experimental * Significant 5% level 0.0- l l I .l I 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Ag. Tech. GPA Regression lines and correlations of the high, medium and low ATGPA levels with 051GD. 53 students with a 3.0 or better was 55% for control and 71% for experimental while for the low ATGPA level it was 8% and 25% respectively. Even in the high ATGPA level, where there was not a difference in OSlGD, a higher percentage of students received a 4.0 (60% for control and 69% for experimental). Thus, in all three ATGPA levels, the audio-tutorial mastery learning strategies increased the percentage of students re- ceiving higher grades and reduced the percentage of lower grades. Foth (1974) and Sparks (1973) have also reported similar upward skewing of grades for audio-tutorial mastery learning programs similar to the one used in Soil Science 051. The mean ATGPA for students with high (4.0), medium (3.5-3.0), and low (2.5-0.0) achievement in Soil Science 051 are given in Table VIII. For the experimental group there was a significant reduction (5% level) in the mean ATGPA for the high 051 achievement level. This indicates that more students with a lower ATGPA in the experimental group, as compared to the control group, were able to achieve a 4.0 in Soil Science 051. While the percentage of students decreased in the low Soil Science 051 achievement level, those who did perform to this level had a similar mean ATGPA. The percentage of students in Soil Science 051 with less than a 2.0 HSGPA was 30% for the control group and 13% for the experimental group due to the increased selection pressure previously mentioned. However, the strategies used for the experimental group increased the percentage of students receiving a 3.0 or better in Soil Science 051 from 54 .umou u m.ucopsum means am>oa mm may no Hmucwfiaaomxo anm acmummm«p mauqmowmwcmflme mm he.~ amucmEauomxm we mv.~ Hoausoo o.~Im.m mm mm.~ Hmucmfiflummxm mm Ha.m aouusou o.mnm.m on mm.m amuamEMaomxm ma «am.m aonucou o.v musmosum mo ommusooaom 4mOB¢ am>ma ucmEm>owno¢ Hmo .amo mocoaom aaom ca mam>ma quEm>ownom mom mommnm>m ucaom oomum Smeaosnooa amusuasowamd Bump umuwh .HHH> manna 55 28% for the control to 50% for the experimental group. For those students who had experienced academic difficulties in high school, proportionately more were able to achieve great- er academic success in the experimental group than in the control group. When the grades in Soil Science 051 were analyzed according to major, it was found that the Turfgrass and Floriculture majors in the experimental group performed significantly better (5% level) than the control (Table IX). Part of the increase for Floriculture majors, however, appears due to an increase in academic ability, since there was also a significant difference (5% level) in first term Agricultural Technology grade point average between the control and experimental. However, from the grade distribu- tions by majors the same relationship shown previously of fewer students with lower grades and more students with higher grades is evident for all majors. Predicted Achievement Versus Actual Achievement The predicted grade (PRDGD) and predicted total points (PRDPTS) are the grades and exam points predicted for the 1974 and 1975 students (experimental group) if they had taken Soil Science 051 in 1972 and 1973 (control years). The prediction equations used, as explained in the procedures, accounted for 68% and 66% of the variability in the Soil Science 051 grade (051GD) and total exam points (TOTPTS), respectively. The prediction equations were based on data 56 means .mao>wuommmou .ao>oa wa one wm on» oummu. u. m.#GOUSDm um amucmEaummxo Scum “communap hausmoamacmamsa.a m mm we mm mo.m e~.m amuemsaumdxm am mm mm om .me.~ .«mm.~ aouueoo manuasowuoam oa mm mm mm sm.~ am.~ amuemsaummxm ma oe me mm ms.m mm.m aouueoo hammHsZIommomosma n ma he av mm.~ mm.m amusmEaammxm m mm as oe oo.m «mo.m aouueoo mmmammusa unmouom owHIm.H o.~Im.~ a.muo.e macho mo «muse noamo muonmz mcowusnwnumaa 00amo mmcucmoaom com: com: . .mmusoo may ca muonms owns» on» How mmoaoscooe amusuasoaumd sump umuam can amo cocoaom aaom ca usmao>oano¢ .xH manna 57 for students with the necessary information for use in the prediction equation or 71% of the total population in 1972-73 and 65% in 1974-75. The average predicted achievement level for the experi- mental group was not significantly different (5% level) from actual achievement of the control group, but was significantly less (5% level) than the actual achievement for the experi- mental group (Table X). This was true for both course grades and total points. The audio-tutorial mastery learning program brought forth greater achievement than that predicted for the lecture-laboratory method. For the experimental group used in the prediction equation 65% of the students achieved a 3.0 or better in Soil Science 051, while the predicted percentage was 48. Table x. Predicted and actual achievement for experimental group and actual achievement for control group. . Actual Predicted 051 Achievement Control Experimental Experimental Mean grade point 2.70 a* 3.05 b 2.85 3 average Mean total points 116 a 121 b 118 a *Means with the same letter in a row are not significantly different at the 5% level using student's t test. 58 The actual and predicted performance in Soil Science 051 for the first term Agricultural Technology grade point average (ATGPA) levels are shown in Table XI. Significant differences (5% level) are noted for the medium and low groups between actual and predicted performance. Students who had previously achieved less than 3.49 ATGPA, on the average, increased in achievement over what was predicted for them both in grade achieved and correspondingly in total points achieved. Students who had a high ATGPA, on the average, did not increase actual achievement over what was predicted for them. Table XI. Actual and predicted achievement for three ATGPA levels for the experimental group. . ATGPA Levels 051 Achievement 4.0_3.5 3.49-2.50 2.49-0.0 Mean grade point average Actual 3.88 3.14* 2.15* Predicted 3.84 2.89 1.88 Mean total points Actual 133 122** 109** Predicted 133 118 103 *I**Significantly different from predicted at 5% and 1% level, respectively, using student's t test. The regression lines in Figure 6 show a decreasing difference between PRDGD and 051GD as the ATGPA increases. The slopes of these lines are significantly different (5% level) with a faster rate of increase for the PRDGD as the 59 ATGPA increases. With increasing achievement in Soil Science 051 the corresponding ATGPA is reduced for the actual 051GD and the PRDGD. The correlation of the OSlGD with ATGPA (.70) is less than the correlation of PRDGD with ATGPA (.98). This was expected since the prediction equation relies heavily on the ATGPA. When comparing predicted points (PRDPTS) with actual total points (TOTPTS), shown in Figure 7, the regression line reveals that, on the average, students performed greater than predicted up to 132 points. With a minimum level for a 4.0 of 129 points (86%), it was possible for all three ATGPA levels to achieve higher than predicted, even though the 051GD and PRDGD were not significantly different for the high ATGPA level. On the average, these data indicate that the strategies used increased achievement for students with lower and medium academic abilities while those with higher academic abilities maintained their high achievement. This is contradictory to the findings of Wood and Wylie (1973), who concluded that it is often the less able student who profits least, rather than most, from individualized courses. Comparisons between actual and predicted performance for each major revealed that only the Turfgrass students had significant increases (5% level) in actual achievement over predicted achievement (Appendix Table IX). While the Land- scape-Nursery and Floriculture students sampled for use in the prediction equation did, on the average, increase in 60 Soils 051 Grade or Predicted Grade J 4 I L n 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Ag. Tech. GPA Figure 6. Regression lines and correlations of 051GD and PRDGD with ATGPA for experimental (1974—75) group. Actual Total Points Figure 7. 61 150i- 131'- 113-— 94*- y = 0.77x + 30.4 r = 0.73 75;: ,J 1 1,- 1 ' l . Q L If 75 94 113 131 150 Predicted Points Regression line and correlation for predicted points with total points. 62 actual achievement over what was predicted, the differences were not significant (5% level). From previous discussion increased achievement has been noted for these two majors for the experimental group over the control group. Effects of the Retesting Procedure The results of the retesting procedure were studied to determine the effects of retests on increased learning. Com- parisons between 1974 and 1975 for improvement in student achievement are shown in Table XII. Some differences are noted in all categories between 1974 and 1975. A lower pro- portion of the students in 1975 achieved 76% or more on the first attempt, and for those taking a retest, a lower propor- tion improved their point total. However, a higher percentage of students in 1975 took a retest. Possibly the differences between 1974 and 1975 were due to proportionately more students achieving lower on the first attempt. Each student likely finds a best way to use the first test and retest procedure to benefit his personal desires for academic success. The average proportion for the experimental group (1974 and 1975) who increased their point total due to a retesting procedure was 47% for students with 76% or more on the first attempt exam, and 79% for those with 75% achievement or less. Thus, the retesting procedure did have considerable effect on improving student achievement. Foth (1973) has reported 80% of the students taking retests improved their point total over the first attempt exam. 63 vb em mm mm ov em av em me hm wfimxm m>am Mom ommum>¢ an em mm om mm mm mm ov mm om m mm mm mm vb mv mm av Hm vm on v gm mm mm vm om mm om ma mm mm m cm mm mm mu mm ow mm mm mm mm N Hm we no om Nm we mm mg mm mm H unooamm mhma vwha mnma whoa mhma «baa mhma «baa mhma vhma ummumu so umouma umouoa co ummuou mouoom oommmuoca M009 moaoom commoaocH xooa mmmau Hmmmsz meo umaouum umaam co meo umaouum umuam co m welwmh mo ucmEm>mano< wmhIwooa mo usmfim>oano< .mhma can vnma How waspmooam msaummumu m nuaz usefio>manom unopsum Ga momsmno .Hax manna 64 Grade distributions for the actual 051 grade and the 051 grade computed on the basis of scores from only the first attempt exam, or the grade without a retest (GDNRT), are shown in Table XIII. The lower mean GDNRT and larger per- centage of students in the lower grades for 1975, indicates less achievement on first attempt exam in 1975. Table XIII. Grade distributions for actual 051 grades and grades without a retest. Numerical Actual GDNRT Grades 1974 1975 1974 1975 Percent 4.0-3.0 70 66 46 35 2.5-2.0 22 29 29 22 1.5-0.0 8 5 25 43 Mean 051GD 3.15 a* 3.10 a 2.54 b 2.12 c *Means with the same letter are not significantly different at the 5% level using student's t test. Additional comparisons between 1974 and 1975 for the two types of questions, recognition and problem solving, also indicate less achievement for the first attempt exams in 1975. From samples composed of students who took all retest exams (31 in both 1974 and 1975), 53% of the students in 1974 and 80% in 1975 achieved less than 70% of the recognition questions on the first attempt exams. 65 For the same sample in 1974, 53% of the students achieved less than 60% of the problem solving questions, as compared to 68% of the students in 1975. After the retest the percent- age of low achievers was reduced for recognition questions from 53% to 20% in 1974 and from 80% to 24% in 1975. However, the same reduction in low achievers did not occur for the problem solving questions in 1975 as it did for the recogni- tion questions. After the retest the percentage of low achievers was reduced for problem solving questions from 53% to 25% in 1974 and from 68% to only 45% in 1975. Students in 1975 possibly spent more remediation time learning recognition than learning problem solving, which requires more time to learn. This is reflected by the data since the reduction in low achievers after a retest was 53% for recognition questions and only 23% for problem solving questions in 1975. The reductions for 1974 after a retest were approximately the same for both types of questions (33% for recognition and 28% for problem solving). The longer time for learning the problem solving objectives would also explain the lower percentage of students that increased achievement after a retest on problem solving questions (25%) and the higher percentage that increased achievement on recognition questions (45%) for the sample from the experi- mental group (1974 and 1975). When students are given the opportunity to take retests, each student will react differently in terms of how he will use the retesting procedure. Stamp gt gt. (1973) has also 66 reported differences among students in using optional exams. Some students took optional exams without studying properly, since it would not count against them if they did poorly, even though they were capable of doing better. However, this is the student's choice and is a consequence of a retesting procedure. With a reduction in test anxiety and the oppor- tunity for increased achievement, the desired end results of a retesting procedure were accomplished. Achievement of Behavioral Objectives Forty identical exam questions representing 25 behavior- al objectives were given to both the four-year students in Soil Science 210 and two-year students in Soil Science 051. The achievement means for these common behavioral objectives were 86% and 81%, in 210 and 051, respectively, and the means were not significantly different (5% level). Students in Soil Science 051 performed similarly to four-year degree students when the audio-tutorial mastery learning program was used for both courses. Students in the Agricultural Technology program looked at in this study would appear to have similar achieve- ment capabilities as four-year degree students taking a 200 level soil science course when audio-tutorial mastery learning strategies are used. Average success ratios for behavioral objectives for the experimental group are shown in Table XIV. The success ratio is the percentage of students who obtained the behavior- 31- objectives for a particular unit. Success ratios were 67 .mem assay 0 cu so pass some now mo>auomflno musuooa cam masam oouooamm mca>masom mucopsum mo ommvaooaom mmmno>¢e am we om we we muacs o>am How ommuo>¢ ms on mm mm mm ea > we me he on we on >H em ms om me Oh ma HHH mm mm mm me me ma HH mm mm mm be an Ha H ucooaom wasuomq mafiqm musuomq madam mmefiuuom who Hmnfiaaz «ameam ammumm adamuum umuam amuoa>memm vac: . mo Monasz . .msoum amusmaaammxo on» Mom monsuooa can mmasam may 80am mw>auomnno amu0a>maon now moaumn mmooosm .>Hx manna 68 slightly lower in eight out of ten instances for lecture objectives as compared to SLATE objectives. Possibly where students had the opportunity to learn at their own pace in audio-tutorial setting a few more students were able to achieve the behavioral objectives. Lecture objective success ratios are lower for retests in two instances, and in one instance for SLATE objectives. The lower success ratios on these retests does not necessarily mean that fewer total number of students achieved the behav- ioral objectives after a retest, but rather of those students taking a retest, the percentage achieving success was slightly lower than the percentage on the first attempt. By averaging the SLATE and lecture objectives and the first try and retests, 74% of the students in 1974 and 1975 successfully achieved the behavioral objectives used in Soil Science 051. While it would be desirable for 100% of the students to achieve all behavioral objectives, under the time constraints for the learning strategies used, the author feels that the average three-fourths success ratio indicates a successful program for this stage of development. The compre- hensive final exam comprised of selected objectives from each of the five units substantiates the three-fourths success ratio obtained. 69 Evaluating Content Relevancy Students in Agricultural Technology programs have indicated a strong interest in information relevant to their major. Evaluation of the effectiveness of audio-tutorial units which contain relevant information for each major con- sisted of pre and post placement training evaluations (Table XV). Students more strongly agreed in 1974, as compared to 1973, that they became more competent in soil science due to Soil Science 051 (item 1). This was true both before and after placement training. Possibly with an increase in students receiving higher grades more felt they had a more thorough understanding of the area of soil science. Work dur- ing placement training did not alter student responses. Possibly the soil problems encountered were not sufficient to influence their feelings of competency in soil science. The stronger agreement for relating topics of the student's field of interest in 1974 and 1975, as compared to 1973, was assumed to be due to the R18 in 1974 and the incor- poration of the RIS into the SLATE in 1975 (item 2). On the average, the students had less difficulty determining the relevancy of the topics covered with the audio-tutorial pro- gram. With increased relevancy, increased motivation to study soil science could be expected. There was not a significant difference (5% level) between 1973 and 1974 in the response to the post placement training question concerning relevancy of subject matter to on-the-job situations (item 3). An increase in knowing how concepts apply to a certain area 70 .omammmap mamcoaum ma o>am one woman aamcoaum ma moo mamas mason one so mEoua may 0» noncommoa anm was msmoz+ . .umou u m.ucoosum means ao>ma wm may pm usoammmap maucmoamasmam no: mam 30H M GA aouuoa meow may nufl3 newest .mcacamau ucmEoomam ca maanz UOHOHGSOOGO warms H mGOHHMSHflm noflumeuueo men on amo maaom ea oosumoa H Howamume on» mcaumaou m ea.~ m me.~ ea suasoaaaae m>me no: can a .m .ummHOpsfl mo paoam >8 ou ooao>oo moamou on» msaumama n ma.m n eo.m m m>.m ca avasoammap o>ms no: cap H .N .Hmo maaom 0p map mosoflom Haom mo some on» n mm.a w om.a an m>.a n hm.a «8 om.a ca ucouomeoo ouoE wEooon o>ma H .a whoa msma mnma whoa mnaa EmuH wcasamaa unoEoomam “mom mcacamae Damaoomamuoam . +.mhma can .enma .mhma MOM coaumsam>o unocsum acacamau usoEoOMHQIumom one one mo mange EmuH .>x manna 71 before beginning a job (item 2), did not appear to influence the ability to make the application while working (item 3). For the experimental group 79% of the students agreed or strongly agreed that they did not have problems relating topics covered to their field of interest, while for the majors the percentages strongly agreeing or agreeing were 85% (Turfgrass), 75% (Landscape-Nursery), and 74% (Floriculture). For the Landscape-Nursery and Floriculture majors the 10% reduction in agreement may reflect more diversity within these majors than in the Turfgrass major. Where students in Turf— grass are primarily interested in golf course maintenance, students in the other two majors are divided between commer- cial production and retail sales. Examples of both of the latter interests were not used in all cases in the SLATES due to time limitations. This could be the reason more of these students indicated difficulty in relating topics covered to their specialty than did Turfgrass majors. Students taught with the topical information SLATES and mastery learning strategies expressed increased competency for the subject matter over those students taught with a lecture- laboratory format. These differences remained even after the student's placement training. By incorporating relevant infor- mation into SLATE programs students experienced less difficulty than with the lecture-laboratory format in relating the topics covered to their special area. When students were asked to comment freely on the information in the SLATES that related to their major they responded: "I enjoyed this material; it 72 was relevant, practical and a very informative part of the SLATE materials." Time Used in Learning Center Activities Time spent listening to tapes, viewing slides, and participating in activities in the learning center was recor- ded by students when they checked in and out (Table XVI). The average time per week was significantly reduced (5% level) from 1.32 hours in 1974 to .94 hours in 1975. This was due to combining the Relevant Information SLATE with the modified Soil Science 210 SLATE and represents a gain in learning efficiency. I felt the reduction in time was also needed in order that students could complete the week's SLATE unit and still feel like having time to return to the learning center to review. Steffen (1971) reported that as program- running time increased the amount of time a student was willing to spend on an audio-tutorial unit decreased. When the time to complete a unit is long, students may not return to enhance their achievement due to satiation for using the learning center or demands of other courses. The turfgrass majors in 1974 averaged more time in the learning center than the other two majors. The higher mean OSlGD for Turfgrass majors (3.42) over Landscape—Nursery' (2.93) and Floriculture (3.10) majors in 1974 could have been due to increased use of the learning center. However, for the 1974 Turfgrass majors the correlation between learning center time and 051GD is - 0.25 which is not significant (5% level). 73 .am>ma wm um .owa0am can qu anm accumumwp maucmoamwamwmas .ummu u m.pcopsum msam: ao>oa mm may um mhma Eoum unmaommap Sausmoamasmwme mm.o oo.a mo.a . am.o am.o oo.a va.o mhma ma.a ma.a «amm.a ~m.a mm.a mm.a «mm.a vhma xmoz amm musom .OHHOHMI Zia .musa o.oIm.~ o.mIm.m o.v mucmpsum use» muoflmz amo usoEo>oanod amo Had .moaua>auom Housmo measamma ca poms mafia .H>x manna 74 Therefore, there was not a relationship between the grade achieved in Soil Science 051 and learning center time. This is true for both 1974 and 1975 as shown in Figure 8. The lack of association between learning center time and achievement is contrary to the findings in the literature as reported by Steffen (1971). The conclusion usually reached was that the more time spent in the A-T laboratory the higher the achievement. Postlethwait (1964) also reported a positive correlation of hours of study in the audio-tutorial booth with achievement. Kindschi (1973) and Wentling (1973) found nega- tive correlations of aptitude with learning center time which is consistent with the belief that more time is required for learning by lower ability students than by more intelligent students. However, when ability categories (ATGPA levels) of students in Soil Science 051 were made, correlation of 051GD with learning center time were not significant (5% level). Average learning center times for high, medium, and low ATGPA levels were 1.30, 1.29, 1.35 for 1974 and 1.0, 0.94, and 0.95 for 1975 respectively. Differences between ATGPA levels were not significantly different (5% level). Factors other than the time spent in the learning center are important in determining the grades received by students in Soil Science 051. The low correlations for achieved grade and learning center time could be due to the fact that learning center time may only account for one-third to one-fourth of the total time students spent working on the course (Table XVII, item 5), and the fact that achievement was 75 4.0 J— O 000(Ix9‘30(p00(‘p0 o o . /’ / o C ococsg.ooooe ’1. 1975 (o) / r = 0.17 (r significant at 3.0 - '3 g 11% level) A: / (U r " "( qt 0 g “ “ 3 ’00 O 1974 (~) H r = —0.07 m __ r a . . (r significant at c) 2.0 ooco o s, 51% level) m H '8 o o o . m 1.0 e- o . 0.0..— ll J I 1 l 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Learning Center Time Figure 8. Regression lines and correlations of learning center time with Soils 051 grade. 76 mamcoaum ma o>am new mmumm hamcoaum ma oco oumn3 anomoumo some cm mucmpsum mo mmmucooamm+ .ooammmac .ummu u m.usm©sum means ao>oa mm on» um mama anm ucoummmap hausmowuacmwma .mason a can» maoe aev .musos «In amv .musoe «Ia Ame .ueoe a lac names come mumou mamm ppm mucoEcmammm mam mm.~ I. ma em mm aa mama Teams .mmemam we» meaumaesoo ea cemem am.~ II m mm em m vama 50» par ommuw>m on» so mam» £058 303 .m .mIm Ame .aIm aev .mIm Amy .NIH amv .o aav mo.~ m a mm an em mama “mmeaam no senses measoaaom me» asap ma.~ a m em mm am vama pcooom m How Ho>o #:63 Ho oo3ma>ma H .v .emumadsoo can a mmeaam m~.~ N v mm me ma mama zoa>oa ou use: coasomnom we con» ae.~ a ma mm mm ma eama macs asap umuemo meaenmma men new: a .m .xmm3 umsu How m~.~ a ea ma me em mama madam men smaaam on anon cmaotmsom as «mm.a o m ea as me eama amen macs amuemo mcaeumma we» com: a .N .aoucoo unmanned was no Emamonm aamam>o may am.m ea mm mm aa m mama scum emuomuume umaemo meaeuema we» ea vm.m ea me ma ma a eama anon omasoonom m msa>mn was» pawn H .a usmoaom m e m m a com: +>uommumu mmsomwom amow EwuH .mama can vama How momuw>muom uwucmo msacumma ca ucmmm oEau measumocou mamum :Owumsam>m .HH>X OHQMB .ooammmwc mamcoaum ma o>am was omamm mamsoaum ma oco mam£3 whommumo some cw muswpsum mo mmmucmoumm+ II mm vm Hm ucooaom .mommmao “woman woman amauo co usmmm mama on» on Hmsvm Amv no mmwa ANV .oaoe adv wm3 mmmao menu new vama mswwcsum #comm H mama mo unseen one .m CMOS v m m +maomoumo omsommmm H Hmmw EmuH a.ucooc .aa>x manna 78 partially dependent on lecture objectives not covered in the SLATES. Also the time a student desires to spend in the 051 learning center is not dependent on academic ability since students with low and high abilities averaged the same amount of time. Perhaps the scheduled hour influenced students to not spend much additional time beyond what was required to com- plete a unit. As described in the procedures, students were scheduled for one hour in the learning center each week, but could return as often as they desired when carrels were vacant. The majority of students favored the scheduled hour, as anticipated by the author, due to busy class schedules (Table XVII, item 1). Only 19% indicated that the scheduled hour detracted from the program. When students were asked to comment freely on the scheduled hour their reasons for liking it were: "Do not like waiting, might put it off too long, could go back during free time anyway if I missed the scheduled hour." In the future where learning center programs are initiated for Agricultural Technology programs, the scheduled hour with additional free periods available might be an important contribution, even though it may influence some students to forego additional learning center time they needed to achieve higher. Students may also learn how to use the SLATE program to perform to a desired level with a certain amount of time input. A mastery program with specific behavioral objectives possibly changes the relationship of learning center time with achieve- ment. Where learning objectives are vague the more time a 79 student spends the higher grade he receives, however, where learning objectives are specific the student only spends the time necessary to achieve the objectives in the SLATE. Where all students were not required to master the objectives be- fore leaving the learning center, then differences in achievement could reflect the student's different options for use of his time outside the learning center to study SLATE objectives or lecture objectives not covered in the SLATES. With the revisions made in 1975 fewer students indi- cated the need for additional time to complete the SLATES (Table XVII, item 2) along with more students indicating less time in completing the reading assignments and self tests (item 5). More students also agreed in 1975 (65%) than in 1974 (52%) that they used more than their scheduled hour to review completed SLATES (item 3). When less total time per SLATE is required, more students may be willing to spend additional time reviewing the SLATES. The small increase in using the learning center more than the scheduled hour did not result in more SLATES being reviewed, since the same per- centage of students reviewed the same number of SLATES in 1974 and 1975 (item 4). Fewer students in 1975 than in 1974 indicated that they spent less time studying for Soil Science 051 than on other three credit classes even though less time was spent in the learning center in 1975 (item 6). Some students may have viewed the learning center time as a class hour and did not count it with studying hours. Approximately one half of the 80 students in 1974 and 1975 spent more time studying for Soil Science 051, and the reasons for this were: "Enjoyed class more, more material, more exams, and learning center program required more time. If all courses in Agricultural Technolo— gy programs were converted to the learning strategies used in Soil Science 051 these students might find increased difficul- ty in determining their priorities for studying. However, the comments students gave for spending less or equal time were: "Good organization of course, learning center time was well spent, and the material was easy to understand." Sparks (1973) and Foth (1974) have both reported students spending more time with A-T mastery programs than with non-mastery. Stuck and Mannatt (1970) reported 38% more time spent by students in a lecture method than in an audio- tutorial group. The amount of time a student chooses to spend studying a particular course is probably dependent on individual aspirations for achievement in that course and individual responses to the learning strategies used. Student Evaluation Results The Student Instructional Rating System (SIRS) was given to students in 1972, 73, 74 and 75. These forms are designed for conventional instructional formats and are not as applicable to an audio-tutorial mastery learning program. The results of this evaluation by the composite profile items are shown in Table XVIII. Except for course organization, the composite profile items between the control and 81 .umou u m.ucoosum means ao>oa mm on» um usoaowmap maucmoamacmam mam mmsoam amusmEaaomxm was aouucoo How mammE mmmam><« .moammmao mamcoaum ma o>am cam omamm mamsoaum ma oco mamas musmpsum an pmxcwa mm mEmua HSOM so comma Eoua nomm+ mm.a mm.a mm.a ma.a cm I aa RGOaumnacmmao omusou .m ao.m va.m mm.m mo.m ma I ma mesmsmp onusou .v coauomamusa mm.m ma.~ mm.~ mo.m Na I m aouosaumcaIucopsum .m am.a ma.a vm.a mm.a m I m umououca unocsum .m aa.a am.a aa.a mm.a v I a uco8m>ao>ca aouosuumsa .a mama vam mama mama aonEsz Eopa +mEouH amucofiaaomxm aoausoo mmam mammoum ouamomfioo .mcmmE Eoua maawoam ouamomeoo Empmmm msaumm amcoauosuumca ucmpsum .HHH>x manna 82 experimental groups are not significantly different (5% level). A better rating for course organization in the experi- mental group could be due primarily to the use of the workbook which contained SLATE procedures, lecture outlines and self test items as well as having the term planned from start to finish. The lack of difference between the remaining compo- site profile items between the control and experimental groups may be significant in that even after the incorporation of the audio-tutorial mastery learning program students still re- sponded similarly. Stamp gt gt. (1973) has reported enhanced student-instructor contact with a minimum level of achievement in an A-T program. However, with the learning strategies used in this study the experimental group responded similarly to the control for instructor involvement and student-instructor interaction (items 1, 3), even though there probably was less actual student contact by the instructor. The contact of the students with tutors in the learning center could have been responsible for this. Responses to the items for student interest also remained at the same level. It was hoped by the author that student interest would increase with the use of relevant information in the SLATES. This may have not been attainable due to the high level of interest already established. The absence of change in course demands is interesting since new topics were added to the course as well as more exams, yet students in the control and experimental groups 83 responded similarly to this profile item. It was expected by the author that this rating would increase. However, since this item did not change, the possibility exists that the strategies used to increase student learning also created more efficient use of time and enabled the incorporation of addi- tional tOpics without changing the students' attitudes about the course demands. Percentile ranks for the composite profile items are the percentage of previous administrations, in the department and college, resulting in ratings that were less favorable than the rating on the item. The average percentile ranks for the control and experimental groups are presented in Table XIX. For the composite profile items, except student- instructor interaction, the experimental group for both department and college had a higher percentile rank than the control. Though no differences were noted between the control and experimental group's composite profile item means, there were increased improvements for the experimental group as compared to the control group when the composite profile responses are compared to other courses offered in the Department of Crop and Soil Sciences and the College of Agri- culture. Audio-tutorial mastery learning strategies, as indicated by the percentile rankings, were more favorably received by students than the lecture-laboratory program when both groups' responses are compared to other courses in the department and college. 84 Table XIX. Percentile ranks for SIRS composite profile items. Percentile Ranks* Composite Profile Items Congiglrtmeg:pt. ContrgIllegExpt. Percent Instructor involvement 57 73 62 73 Student interest 52 64 58 66 Student-instructor 43 25 32 32 interaction Course demands 64 71 63 72 Course organization 71 97 82 94 *Percentage of previous administrations resulting in ratings less favorable. Comparisons were also made between high (4.0), medium (3.5-2.5) and low (2.0-0.0) Soil Science 051 achievement cate- gories for the SIRS composite profile items. The results are shown in Table XX. Differences in the low category are noted for student interest and course demands. Those students who achieved less indicated less interest in the course. This could be expected since if a student had less interest in a course he may achieve less and, if he achieves less, his interest may also decline. Low achievers also indicated increased course demands over medium and high achievers. Apparently students who achieved less tended to find the demands of Soil Science 051 greater. This could be translated into the time required to achieve higher, however, any .mmammmap mamsoaum ma m>aw paw momma mamcoaum ma mco mamas ucoosum on» an coacma mm anm mmam map anm macaumwsv HSOM co comma ma woumaa Emua nomm+ .ummu u m.uemesum msams am>oa wm gnu um ucmammmap maucmoamasmam uoc mam 30H m cm amuuma oEmm nua3 mcmo2« 85 b am.a n.oa.a m mv.a em.a soauwuasmmao omnsoo n ma.m m ma.m m om.m oa.m mpcmEmp mmusou m am.~ m m~.m m am.m m~.m coauomuouca aouosaumsaIucocsum n mm.a m mm.a m mm.a om.a pmoaousa vampsum m va.a m oa.a «m vm.a vm.a usofio>ao>sa aouosnumca o.eue.m m.~-m.m o.e muemesum aae +smua maamoum whommumo ucofim>oano¢ amo I .msoam amucoEaammxo MOM amo maaom ca useEo>masom co comma moaaomoumo spas ammamv memos Eoua oaamoam muamomeou .xx magma 86 additional time required by these students was not an option they wanted to choose. The higher achieving students more strongly agreed that the course was well organized than did the medium and low achievement categories. This may indicate that those students who performed better were also able to use the learning strategies more effectively and, therefore, were in stronger agreement that the course was well organized. Stu- dents with lower achievement, especially after being told that high achievement was possible, could have become more critical of certain aspects of the course organization and, therefore, did not rate the organization as high. The Soil Science 051 evaluation procedure prepared by the author consisted of three different evaluations. The first two evaluations were given the third and sixth weeks and the final evaluation was given the last week of the term. The results of the first and second evaluation not presented prev- iously are shown in Table XXI. Favorable results were obtained for all questions and there were no differences be- tween 1974 and 1975. The majority of students in the third week of classes in 1974 and 1975 liked the course set up (item 1), felt they would enjoy going to the learning center (item 2), and did not find the SLATES they had completed difficult (item 3). Over 90% of the students agreed or strongly agreed that they liked being able to take a retest (item 4). 87 .va coaummoxm .mmammmac mamcoaum ma m>am cam mmamm mamcoaum ma mco mamn3 mmaaommumo ucmEmmao<+ . OmHaaOO ea.a II m N am em mama was» ea ammo ummam m em.a II m ma me mm eama meaeuema em a maaa ammm a .m ceaumsam>m ammz eaxam .mpmam me m>oamEa m~.a a e a m mm mama on ummumu m meme on mane m~.a II II m aa om mama meamn mo mmea we» mxaa a .e .pcmumampc: ou uaso em.~ a ma om me aa mama Iammae mamaumnes meaam we» ae.~ m ea ma am ma mama venom uoe m>me a sea om .m .umucmo mm.m N ma mm me e mama meaeuema men on meaom mm.~ m aa mm me a eama a0.98 aaas a maaa amen a .N mo.~ a m aa am om mama .m: umm ma mmueoo mane mo.~ m a ma me am eama mes may mxaa aaammu a .a COOS m v m N H HMO? EOuH . OZ +mmmsomwmm mmmucmoamm coaumsae>m #663 means .mcoapm5am>m ucmpsum Ucoomm 0cm umaam amo mocmaom aaom .Hxx magma 88 coaummoxm .mmammmac mamcoaum .va ma m>am new mmamm mamcoaum ma mco mam£3 mmaaommumo pcmEmmam<+ .mam>ma mm um mama scum uemummmae aauemoaaaemamI ~m.~ ma om me m mama .ueoe mnsuuma Ia~.~ m mm om aa mama we» on meaom mama a .oa mm.m oa am am ea mama .Hmuemo mea ma.~ aa em as m eama Ieumma men on meaom exaa a .m .Eamu may no meascammn ms» am.~ ma mm am ma mama um ems» 30: me now umammm me.~ mm aa mm am eama mum mamaumums meaam wee .m .asmmame mum mamauso masuoma new m~.~ a am am ma mama meaam comm no 235me m5. mo.~ m mm ae mm mama um emumaa mm>auomano was .a .mmmam>m ucaom mpmam muamam>ass ucmmmam ms om.~ ma mm em on mama menu amemae ma mmasoo was» .am.~ ea ea om mm eama you memum emumeaoauem as .m :mmz e m N a gem» EmuH .02 + mmmsomwmm mmmucmoamm a.u:ouv coaumsam>m xmm3 nuxmm a.ueooc .axx magma .aa coaummoxm .mmamMmac mamcoaum ma m>am can mmamm mamcoaum ma mco mamn3 mmauommumo usmEmmnm¢+ .mam>ma wm um mama Scum ucmuwmmac haucmoawficmwma ummu umaam may amen mmma .m amen umuaa men on amemm .m pump umaam map How cmnu maoa .a "ma ummu mm.a II II mm am mm mama Ima a mom meamesnm eemdm mo.m II II me mm ma mama a mEau mo unseen mes .ea - .mcmam as m>oamaa mm.a m m m oa om mama on ummumu m mama on mane Ima.a II II N ea em eama meame mo mmea we» maaa a .ma . OmHaaOO was“ :a pmms mmsvasnomu mo.~ m II om me mm mama we» Baas usage» memesoo Ima.a m m ea am mm mama umsuo mmm on maaa eases a .ma .mmasuoma new mmeaam men emmsumn am.m ma mm ma m m mama amaumums no coaumo am.m ma am ma m II eama Iaaese none can ma memes .aa m e m m a . cmmz +mmmcommmm mmmusmoamm amm» EmuH oz A.ueooc coaumeam>m awe: euxam a.ueoov .axx manna 90 Results of the second evaluation were also favorable for the instructional strategies used. Fewer students in 1975 indicated their anticipated grade in Soil Science 051 was higher than their present ATGPA (item 6). This may sug- gest more students were having difficulty in 1975 than in 1974. Also a larger percentage of students indicated that they spent more time studying for the retest in 1975 (item 14). This would suggest that some students either had difficulty with the first exam or just did not study as much for it in 1975 as in 1974. The differences in no retest grades dis- cussed previously confirms this difference. Ten percent more students in 1975 than in 1974 agreed that they were learning a great deal in Soil Science 051 (item 5). This is somewhat contradictory since fewer students in 1975 indicated they were achieving higher than their ATGPA levels. Perhaps the more time spent in studying for retests resulted in some stu- dents feeling they were learning more. Over three-fourths of the students agreed or strongly agreed that they would like to see other courses taught with the techniques used in Soil Sci- ence 051 (item 12). Students in the sixth week of the term were very much in favor of the way the course was being conducted. While 75% of the students indicated they would like other courses taught with the techniques used, only 50% in 1974 and 61% in 1975 indicated that they liked going to the learning center (item 9). The small increase in 1975 could be due to the shorter time required to complete a SLATE and the more pleasing surroundings of the new learning center. A 91 decrease in the proportion of students who strongly agreed or agreed that they liked going to lecture occurred in 1975 (item 10), which was possibly due to the earlier hour of the lecture. It was hoped by the author that going to the learn- ing center and lecture would be enjoyed by more students. With one-fourth of the students in the uncertain category it may be that these students did not feel comfortable with the audio-tutorial format even after six weeks. Results of the items used in the final evaluation for 1974 and 1975 not presented previously are shown in Tables XXII and XXIII. Approximately three-fourths of the students agreed or strongly agreed that they would remember the infor- mation longer (item 1), that the exams were a good estimate of their knowledge (item 4), and that having a straight scale caused them to study more (item 3). The use of self tests in improving exam scores was agreed to by over 90% of the students (item 2). The use of self tests was similar for two- year and four-year students since 93% of the Soils 210 students also agreed with item 2 (Foth, 1973). For almost all of the items the low achievement cate- gory had higher mean values than the high and medium 051 achievement categories. Students with lower achievement were not as positive about the course and strategies used as were the students who achieved higher. Bassin (1974) has also reported similar results where students with low grades tended to lead to lower evaluation results. 92 .mH 0cm NH ummoxm meufl Ham How poms mmummmwo hamcouum ma w>Hm ocm momma >Hmcouum ma moo mum£3 mmfluommumo u:mEmmum¢« ucoEm>owno< Hmo gmmmcommwm mwmucwoumm om.m mm.m vm.m mm.m oa mm mm AH m mhma .ummm 00» wum3 mommy mm.m m¢.m mo.m sm.m vH we ma ma s «baa mg» no mumxmmmm may .m .Hmwumume 93 mo mmoma mm.m NH.N ~m.a mo.~ o m ea om ma mbma I3ocx >8 Mo mumEHumm mo.m oaé mmé Ho.~ o h 3 av om «.me poomm who,» mamxw 0:8 J .Awmmo Hmsms on» GM mm Um>uso coma Ham on: mamxm ma canny whoa wpsum on we ommsmo mpmum Hma Isowunmm m :« uaommu .oaso3 mmuoom pump «0 mm.~ mm.H mo.~ no.~ o 5 mm an an mhma Hmuou cflmuumo m umsu mH.N mo.~ m>.H «o.~ 0 Ha m mm hm «baa mocm>om CH mcwzoax .m .msmxm on» m~.m ~>.H om.a mn.a o m m mv mu mhmafixvmmuoom he pm>oumafl 33H mmé mmé mmé o w w an mm ohm.“ mummy «How 96.3%“ H .m .Hmmcoa omumnawamu on HHflz mmusoo was» ca omcumwa H cow» oq.~ NH.N mm.H vo.m o m om mv hm mhma ImEH0mcfl mnu mmmnsoo sv.~ Hm.~ mn.a ¢H.~ N m mm mm mm «sad umsuo on nmummsoo .H o onm N o mum m o v com: m v m N H Ham» EmuH .oz .cowumsam>m ucmpsum HmCflw Hmo mocmflom Hflom .HHxx mHQMB 93 .mH ocm NH ummoxm mEouw Ham Mom poms mmumomwo aamcouum ma o>am cam omumm mamcoupm ma mco muons mofluommumo ucmsmmumdy .amflumume mamqm ms» usosm>mfino¢ Hmo «mmmcommmm mmmusmoumm «m.a mo.m ma.a mm.H o a m mm mm msma :ufl3 nmumuomucfl Hamz mm.m hH.~ mn.a mH.m N v ma om 5H whma mum3 mousuoma one .oa .oEwu .mucmosum mo mms ucoflowmmo oHOE ca muHSmou vm.m oo.~ mm.a mo.~ o m ma Ho ma mnma mmusoo on» ca poms mm.a nH.~ mm.H Ho.m m a ma hm vm wwma mm cowuosuumca mamm .m .mE mama ou manm cam omEMOM IGH Hams monommmm mH.H o~.~ mm.~ om.~ a m em he ma mhma Housu QMH may o>.H mm.~ om.m mm.~ m h Hm me ma whma mama pmomo: H song .m .uoucoo mcwcumoa may Hh.m mo.m mm.m ma.m m mm mm mm v mbma CH xnoz boa Honuom oo.m mm.m om.m wm.m NH vm mm ma m «had once on oasozm muons .h .Hmo mHflOm nowB ooHMHOOmmm ma 0:3 ocomEOm m~.~ ma.~ ow.~ m~.~ m m mm mm mm mhma on oasonm mam» oo.m mm.m om.~ mm.m m ma em Hm om «bad man so ooa0> one .o o.o|m.m o.m:m.m oww com: m v m N a mom» EouH .oz A.ucoov .HHxx manna .mH can NH ummoxm mEmuH HHm Mom poms omummme mHmconum mH m>Hm cam mmumm mHmcouum mH mco muons mmHuommumo ucmsmoum¢« 94 .AmHOMME HHm now madam one on ommommo mmv Momma we now omummmum oHo3 mnemqm mm.H hm.H «m.H ¢©.H o H m cm vv mbmH may mo3 onu onHH H .mH .Ammamqm mxmms m pmMH on» muoz mmv “ohms me How comma Imam mmaaqm HHm m>mn mm.~ sm.~ s¢.~ sm.~ m ma Ha ms em van on “wound cases H .aa .m can» muoa “my .m Ave .v Ame .m Ame .m AHV "ma masonm Amado mo.v mm.¢ mm.m mH.v mm mm s N o mama may manuasoo no: mm.m oo.v No.¢ mm.m mH «a m H o «smH memxm mo “mnesn was .mH .m va .v Amy .m as .N AHV NH.N mv.~ ~¢.~ mv.~ II b Hm cm H mbmH "on UHoOSm omnooo om.~ mm.N om.m mm.N II a Hm ow o vhmH mflnu HON muflcouo one .NH .GOHuooHoucH mszomm ucoonum mm.~ m¢.~ om.~ om.~ 0 NH mm hm mH mama Mom suflcsuuommo macs sv.~ ~5.~ mm.~ mm.~ m NH am as ma shad mmcfl>oum mmnsoo mane .HH o.oum.~ a.mumwm o.v ammz m s m m H ummw swuH .oz ucm5m>mHno¢ Hmo «mmmcommmm mmmucmoumm A.ucoov .HHxx mHnme 95 The audio-tutorial tapes were at a speed whereby most students did not experience difficulty (item 5). A majority of students indicated that the voice on the tapes should be one of the instructors in the course (item 6). There may be a feeling by students that some continuity between the SLATE and lecture is needed and this is aided when the same person is used for both. However, where a choice is not given the author feels the problems of a strange voice on the tapes would be minor. Students indicated a slightly higher preference for more laboratory work in 1975 than in 1974 (item 7). If this trend should continue it would be necessary to add additional experiments to the SLATE program. Approximately 60% of the students indicated they were able to get help from the tutors in the learning center, with the lower achieving students more strongly agreeing than higher achievers. This is a good indication that those students who were having difficulty were able to obtain any tutoring they desired. That the self instructional strategies used resulted in more efficient use of students' time was agreed to by 80% of the students (item 9). This is a strong indication that the Agricultural Technology students were able to use the audio- tutorial mastery learning program efficiently. Over 80% of the students agreed or strongly agreed that the lectures were well integrated with the SLATE materials and the same proportion disagreed that there was not too much duplication between SLATE and lecture (item 10 in Table XXII 96 and item 11 in Table XXI). The distribution of the course content between SLATE and lecture was well received by the students. While one-half of the students agreed that this course provides for more student-faculty interaction (item 11), the other one-half was uncertain or disagreed. This could be due to faculty contact being an individual process for each student. Only one-half of the students in Soil Science 210 also agreed with this item (Foth, 1973). From the SIRS pro- file items, student response to student-instructor interaction was also similar for control and experimental groups as pre- viously mentioned. Students were almost equally divided between selecting three or four credits for Soil Science 051. A few more wanted four credits in 1974 than in 1975 which may reflect the increased time spent in the learning center. Over 90% of the students wanted five exams or more than five (item 13). Students would appear to favor taking more frequent exams over less material than one or two exams over a larger quantity of material. If each exam is a learning experience, the more exams given, particularly when given the chance for remedial learning, the greater the learning will be. Items 14 and 15 in Table XXII were used to determine the preference for the organization of the SLATES in terms of where the RIS was located. The incorporation of the RIS into the SLATES was favored by the students in 1974 and this change was well received in 1975. 97 The summary of the written comments by students are presented in Table XXIII. Freely written comments indicated: (1) all SLATES were received equally; (2) students were able to complete the amount of remediation they wanted to do before a retest; (3) students liked having a straight grading scale presented the first day of class; (4) students felt the exams were fair; (5) behavioral objectives aided students by letting them know what was expected; (6) students especially liked the organization, retests, learning center, and instructors for Soil Science 051; (7) students liked Soil Science 051 with the audio-tutorial mastery learning program and would like to see other courses in their programs use the same techniques. Student achievement and student evaluations indicated that the audio-tutorial mastery learning program was an effective and efficient way for majors in the Turfgrass, Land- scape—Nursery and Floriculture, Agricultural Technology pro- grams to learn about soil science. The instructional strategies used in Soil Science 051 would be applicable to courses which have the following requirements: (1) students with similar backgrounds to those in Soil Science 051, (2) hierarchical nature of course content, (3) where explicit learning objectives can be determined, and (4) where a learn- ing center and tutors are available. A distinct advantage for wanting to change from a conventional lecture-laboratory arrangement would be in courses where students have diverse 8 9 .muouosuumnH onm Hounmo manummH .mummumu .GOHumNHnmmno mum3 omuommo umoa momnommmu one .mamxm mnu no oono>oo on oHsoz HoHHmumE umn3 cam Eonu mo wouoomxo mos pmn3 mcH3onx cH Eon» oooHo mo>Huomnno onu umnu UoHMOHUnH munmosum .musooooum mnHumoumu on» How manHH mnouum m omuMOHonH omHm munmosum .HmHHmuoE mnu mcHnummH nH Emnu ommHmn onm HMHumme mnu om nummu >Hnmsouonu .MHom mum3 mmeo on» uHmm munoooum on» umnu omuMOHocH munmEEoo mnu mo mnHuonmE one .Hooumn xmoz ou o>HunmonH no can now o>Hnum ou manumEom Eon» o>om .onoum hon» muonz 3onn Eonu umH pH umnu mum3 co>Hm mGOmmmm .mHnu omxHH monu omuooHonH monopsum mnu mo unmoumm o>Hm|muonHz .umfimuum onoomm on» How woman on mem umuHm mnu omms nmnu onm mnoon Inuos can mmuon HHmnu nH HMHHmumE on» ma omxooH mmnu uonp noncommmu munmosum mnu mo euHuommE one .omnoan wHouon I800 meéqm ham mo3 no: .muonESG Hmummnm om>HoomH nOHn3 memqm mno on mmz mumne .momnommon mo Hones: oEMm onu aHmumaonummo oo>HoomH mmedqm man HH4 mmmusoo onu usonm mnHH mHHoHommmo so» oHo umnz mso» mHmn mo>Huomnno HmHOHbmnmn mnu oHo 30m mmamxo on» usonm m>mn so» on munmEEoo umn3 monoum :Hmuumo m nHmuno ou noouo nH pmHHsvoH mm3 umn3 mommoHo mo woo umuflm ms» mansoax mxfla so» can mumsmuum umuwo on» no mnoHumosv oommHE so» mn3 use onHm Dow oHp ummuou m noon 90» non: . can umH03 ummn umxHH H mmaaqm moan» may 5 ~ mmmGOQmmm HO >HMEE§W EouH How COHumsHo>m HmnHm mnu nH com: mEmUH MOM munoEEoo nmuuHu3 onu mo mumfifism .mhlvhmH .HHHNX OHQGB 99 .monmuouum manHmoH humumma HMHuouSMIOHosm mnu mm: memumoum HHmnp nH momnsoo Hmnuo on» mom on mnHH oHsoz wonu pmumoHonH mam: .oonmmmo mHunmmoum mH pH >o3 onu ooom mm3 pH unmsonu mpnmosum umos umnu onmuu mnu on huou IOHUMHunoo 3mm m >Hno nuH3 msoumesn mum3 mmmnommmm mmmusoo mHnu onH>oumEH How o>mn so» on mGOHumommSm uonz .b momnommom mo mumsssm EQUH n.u:oov .HHHxx oHQme 100 academic aptitudes and vocational interests, and the conven- tional setting does not offer enough flexibility. From the results of this study courses that meet the above requirements and are structured and Operated in a manner similar to that described in the Procedures may be expected to increase student achievement and create favorable attitudes toward the instructional strategies. Students in the Agricultural Technology program could also be expected to perform similarly in 200 level courses to four-year students when both are taught with an audio-tutorial mastery learning program. In 1974 and 1975 69% of the students achieved in Soil Science 051 to a level which was achieved by 54% of the students in 1972 and 1973 with the conventional lecture- laboratory arrangement. Also, over three-fourths of the students in 1974-75 indicated they would like to see other courses taught with the instructional techniques used in Soil Science 051. These findings would indicate that for those courses in the Agricultural Technology programs meeting the previously mentioned requirements the use of audio-tutorial mastery learning programs would be feasible and desirable. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Summary Soil Science 051 is an introductory course for two year vocational students in the Institute of Agricultural Technology. Students enrolled in the class have diverse vocational interests and academic abilities. To meet the students' desires for relevant information and increase student achievement, an audio-tutorial mastery learning instructional program was im- plemented for use in 1974 and 1975. The instructional format consisted of: (l) audio-tutorial, Structured Learning and Teaching Environments (SLATES), (2) behavioral objectives for the SLATES and lecture outlines, (3) relevant information for each major incorporated into the SLATES, (4) feedback to the learner in the form of brief diagnostic formative tests incor- porated into the workbook, and (5) summative tests to establish a grade with a retesting opportunity for remediation. Comparisons were made between the control group (conven- tional lecture-laboratory used in 1972 and 1973) and the experimental group (audio-tutorial mastery learning method used in 1974 and 1975). Comparisons between the control and experimental groups consisted of previous academic achievement, entrance test scores, achievement in Soil Science 051, and student evaluations. 101 102 Additional comparisons were made for 1974 and 1975 using achievement in Soil Science 051, predicted achievement, effects of the retesting procedure, achievement of objectives, learning center time spent and Soil Science 051 student evaluations. The scope of this study is limited to the two-year Agricultural Technology student who enrolled in Soil Science 051 during 1972-1975. It is also limited by the type of model used for the audio-tutorial mastery learning program. Conclusions On the basis of the results of this study the following conclusions are presented: 1. Student achievement in Soil Science 051 increased with the audio-tutorial mastery learning program as compared to the lecture-laboratory program as indicated by: (a) a significant increase (5% level) in the mean grade achieved. (b) a greater proportion of higher grades. (c) a significant increase (5% level) in the mean grade achieved over predicted grades. (d) a greater proportion of students achieving higher on a comprehensive final exam. 2. The increased student achievement for the audio- tutorial mastery learning program as compared to the lecture-laboratory program occurred in all 103 academic ability levels and majors as indicated by: (a) (b) (C) a significant increase (5% level) in the mean grade achieved for medium and low first term Agricultural Technology grade point average (ATGPA) levels and proportionately more higher grades in all ATGPA levels. a significant increase (5% level) within the experimental group in the actual mean grade achieved over the predicted grade for the medium and low ATGPA levels and proportionate- ly more higher actual grades than predicted grades for all ATGPA levels. a significant increase (5% level) for the mean grade achieved for Turfgrass majors and proportionately more higher grades for Turf- grass, Landscape-Nursery and Floriculture majors. The use of a retesting procedure resulted in increased student achievement since 63% of the students who took a retest improved their test scores. Students in the audio—tutorial mastery learning program as compared to the lecture-laboratory pro- gram experienced less difficulty in relating the topics covered to their field of interest as indicated by significant differences (5% level) in student evaluation questions. 5. 104 There was not an association between the time spent in the learning center and the grade achieved in the course as indicated by: (a) non-significant correlations (5% level) for OSlGD with learning center time. (b) non-significant differences (5% level) for average learning center time among the three levels of 051 achievement and among the three levels of ATGPA. Student attitudes toward instruction did not change between the control and experimental groups except for course organization as indicated by non-significant differences (5% level) for SIRS composite profile items of instructor involvement, student-instructor interaction, student interest, and course demands. Students with successful achievement had more positive attitudes toward the instructional strategies as indicated by significant differences (5% level) in several evaluation item means be- tween low and high achievers. Student opinion indicated the experimental group accepted the audio-tutorial mastery learning strategy as useful and desirable since: (a) three-fourths of the students agreed that their time was used more efficiently. 10. 105 (b) three—fourths of the students agreed that they would like to see the strategies used in other courses (c) many unsolicited comments were made that "I wish all courses were like Soil Science 051." The audio-tutorial mastery learning program is appropriate for other courses in the Institute of Agricultural Technology, that meet the prerequisite requirements, as indicated by the positive respon- ses from student evaluations and increased student achievement. The SLATE units prepared for use in this study have potential value for use by teachers at other institutions desiring soil science information per- taining to the Turfgrass, Landscape-Nursery and Floriculture areas. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the findings of this study the following recommendations are made for future research concerning the audio-tutorial mastery learning instructional programs for Agricultural Technology students. Research needs to be conducted to determine: 1. Those courses in the Institute of Agricultural Technology that have the need and prerequisite requirements for an audio—tutorial mastery learn- ing program. Those factors which would make using the audio- tutorial learning center liked by more Agricultural Technology students. Ways in which increased achievement for problem solving questions will occur after remediation. The information needed to keep the SLATE units relevant to the needs of those majors in Soil Science 051. The effect on the student's time demands and attitudes if all classes were conducted with an audio-tutorial mastery learning instructional program. 106 107 The effect on increased student achievement where a retesting procedure is used that counts the first exam as some portion of the total grade as compared to where only the highest score is counted. The relationship between time spent in the learning center and the time used studying elsewhere with achievement in the course. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Airasian, P. W. 1971. The role of evaluation in mastery learning. In: Master learning theory and practice. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., New York. pp. 77-88. Basin, W. B. 1974. A note on the biases in students' evaluations of instructors. J. Exp. Educ. 43:16-17. Bjorkuist, D. 1971. What vocational education teachers should know about individualized instruction. The Ohio State Univ. Center for Voc. and Tech. Educ., Columbus. Report No. 49. Blaney, J. P. and D. McKie. 1969. Knowledge of conference objectives and effect upon learning. Adult Educ. 19:98-105. Block, J. H. 1971. Mastery learning theory and practice. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., New York. Bloom, B. S. 1968. Learning for mastery. UCLA-CSEIP Eval- uation Comment. Vol. I, No. 2. Briggs, L. L. 1970. Handbook of procedures for the design of instruction. American Institute for Research, Pittsburgh. Carroll, J. B. 1963. A model of school learning. Teachers College Record. 64:723-33. Connaly, J. J. and T. Sepe. 1972. Do students want individualized instruction. UCLA Eric Clearing House for Junior College Information. No. 34. Costin, F., W. T. Greenough and R. J. Menges. 1971. Student ratings of college teaching: reliability, validity and usefulness. Rev. Educ. Res. 41:511-538. Dalis, G. T. 1970. Effect of precise objectives upon student achievement in health education. J. Exp. Educ. 39:20-23. Davis, R. H., L. T. Alexander and S. L. Yelon. 1974. Learning system design. McGraw—Hill Book Co., New York. 108 109 Drawbaugh, C. D. and W. L. Hall. 1971. Agricultural educa- tion: approaches to learning and teaching. C. E. Merrill Publishing Co., Columbus. Duchastel, P. C. and P. F. Merrill. 1971. The effects of behavioral objectives on learning: a review of empirical studies. Computer and Assisted Instruction Center, Florida State Univ., Tallahassee. Ecker, H. J. 1973. The transfer dilemma. NACTA Journal. 17:48-50. Educational Development Program. 1974. Educational Develop- ment at Michigan State Univ., East Lansing. EDP No. 6. Flocker, W. J. 1972. A video-audio self tutorial approach to learning. J. Agron. Educ. 1:13-16. Foth, H. D. 1973. A mastery learning program in soil science. J. Agron. Educ. 2:65-68. Foth, H. D. 1972. Effective teacher evaluation. J. Agron. Educ. 1:21-23. Foth, H. D. 1974. Improving learning with mastery learning. NACTA Journal. 17:3-5. Foth, H. D., H. S. Jacobs and L. V. Withee. 1964. Laboratory manual for introductory soil science. W. C. Brown Publishers, Dubuque. Foth, H. D. 1967. Structured learning and training environ- ments in soil science. Project No. 204, Educational Development Programs, Michigan State Univ., East Lansing. Geis, G. L. 1972. Behavioral objectives - a selected bio- graphy. Center for Learning and Development. McGill Univ., Montreal (Quebec). Goldschmid, B. and M. Goldschmid. 1972. Modular instruction in higher education: a review. McGill Univ., Montreal (Quebec). Green, D. E., D. L. Stamp, T. T. Thomas and L. L. James. 1973. Student response to a personalized learning and narrated tutorial system (PLANTS). J. Agron. Educ. 2:5-9. Groves, D. R. 1972. Profile of 1972 entering students unpublished material. Institute of Agricultural Tech- nology, Michigan State Univ., East Lansing. 110 Impellitteri, J. T. and C. R. Finch. 1972. Review of synthesis of research on individualized instruction in vocational and technical education. Dep. H. E. W., Washington, D. C. No. 43. Iverson, J. J., J. F. Vincet and R. E. Bender. 1970. Student and program characteristics of technical agricultural programs in Ohio. NC 86, College of Agriculture and Home Economics. The Ohio State Univ., Columbus. p. 38. Jenkins, J. R. and S. L. Deno. 1971. Influence of knowledge and type of objectives on subject matter learning. J. Educ. Psychology. 62:67-70. Keefer, K. E. 1969. Self prediction of academic achievement by college students. J. Educ. Res. 63:53-56. Keller, F. S. 1968. Goodby, Teacher... J. Applied Behavior Analysis. 1:78-79. Kindschi, P. D. 1973. The relationship between aptitude and achievement in the mastery instructional model. Paper presented at Center for Personalized Instruction, Georgetown Univ. Knoblauch, W. A. 1975. Predicting academic success of technical students. In press NACTA Journal. Kulik, J. A., D. Kulik and K. Carmichael. 1974. The keller plan in science teaching. Science. 183:379-383. Lambert, R. H. 1970. Teachers perceptions and principals' expectations for the teacher's role in individualized instruction. Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State Univ. Loughary, J. W. 1970. Education for humaness in the tech- nological society. In: To nuture humaness. Association for SupeEVision and Curriculum Development. NEA, Washington, D. C. pp. 75-85. Mager, R. F. 1962. Preparing objectives for programmed instruction. Feron Publisher, Inc., San FranCisco. McCarley. W. W. 1969. An experimental study to evaluate the effectiveness of an individualized instructional method and lecture discussion method for teaching vocational agriculture. Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State Univ. McVey, G. C. 1970. An experimental evaluation of the effect- iveness of an audio-tutorial method in teaching vocational agriculture. Ph.D. dissertation, Iowa State Univ. 111 Postlethwait, S. N., J. Novak and J. Murray. 1964. An integrated approach to learning. Burgess Publishing Co., Minneapolis. Postlethwait, S. N. 1971. Teaching tools and techniques: an audio-tutorial approach to teaching. Developmental efforts in individualized learning. Weisgeber, R. A. Ed. F. E. Peacock, Inc., Itasca, Ill. Skinner, B. F. 1954. The science of learning and the art of teaching. Harvard Educ. Rev. 24:86-97. Sparks, P. D. 1973. An evaluation of the mastery strategy for general biology students. AIBS Educ. Rev., Vol. 2, No. 2. Stamp, D. L., D. K. Whigham and D. E. Green. 1973.' Student response to a minimum level of achievement in a personalized learning and narrated tutorial system. J. Agron. Educ. 2:10-15. I Steffen, R. F. 1971. Student behavior in A-T instruction. Paper presented at Int. A-T Cong., Purdue Univ. Stuck, D. L. and R. P. Mannatt. 1970. A comparison of audio-tutorial and lecture methods of teaching. J. Educ. Res. 63:119-122. Washburne, C. W. 1922. Educational measurements as a key to individualized instruction and promotions. J. Educ. Res. 5:195-206. Wentling, T. L. 1973. Mastery versus non-mastery instruc- tion with varying test item feedback treatments. J. Educ. Psychology. 65:50-58. Wood, S. W. and R. G. Wylie. 1973. Individualized systems of instruction are better for whom? Center for Personalized Instruction. Georgetown Univ., Washing- ton, D. C. APPENDIX 112 Table I. Factors that Soil Science 051 students indicated were important in motivating them to study for a particular course. Percentage of students Factor Indicating Factor__ 1974 1975 Grades 48 40 Interest in subject 46 38 Relevancy of subject 40 24 Instructor attitude 25 14 113 .oommamHa eHmnomum mHasmm m>Hu ana momma eHmnomum mHasmo ono omon3 oHaom no amnnam mEouH« .HaHmmmaE mmmsoo on» NO mannammmmcns moo» om noHuanmucoo mHonu ou Hm.m mm.m me.m om.m m>HuaHom mcHEdmnoo mEHu oou mmm3 munmfianmma nmosoaon one .mH .mHaHmam mm.m me.m m¢.m mm.m oou HaHmouaE onu omunommmm mHHamonom mouosmumnH one .vH mm.m Hm.m o¢.m em.m .HaHmmmaE none 00» mm>oo om commamuua mouosmumcH one .MH ee.~ em.~ ~m.m vm.~ .nonmsomHa mmaHo omuaHseHum mHHamonom mouosmumnH one .NH Ne.H m¢.H mm.H me.H .mnonmosm xma om mansmmommo na can unmasum one .HH .munHom3oH> .mmonuo em.m HN.N mm.m Hc.~ cna maoUH 3m: 0m m>Humooom comaomma mouosmumnH one .OH mw.m o¢.N mm.~ m~.~ .mnoHnHmo mmmmmxo om mucocsum cmmamsoono mouosmumnH one .m .mmmsoo mm.H em.H om.H we.H mHnu om moo amma mHnm cH unmummfioo omoa oEooon m>an 50» .m Nm.H mo.~ mm.H ~H.~ .mHHasuooHHmunH 50» ammnoHHano ommsoo mHnu man» uHmH :0» .e em.H He.H we.H mm.H .mmaHo cH m>Hunomua MHHamonom omm3 50» .w om.H me.H cm.H em.H .HaHmmmaE mmmsoo onu mCHnmamH nH omummmoucH omo3 so» .m .HaHmomaE onu conmamH munoasum mv.H N¢.H we.H mm.H mnu mmnuon3 nuH3 pmnmoonoo on on amEomm mouosmumnH one .e .mmaHo nH mmomoa mucHom mom om ammHon mo.~ Hm.H em.H Nm.H mmoconomxo HanOmmmm mo monEaxo Ho om: a.mouosmumnH one .m mm.H ov.H Hm.H Hm.H .manoaom cH ampmommunH on on cosmom mouosmumnH one .N .HaHmouaE ~5.H mm.H mm.H mm.H ommsoo mcHunomomm con3 UHumaHmsnunm mas mouosmumnH one .H memH eemH memH NemH mcaoz EoUH . «.mnaofi EouH cca munofiouaum AmmHmv Eoummm mnHuam HanOHuosmumnH unopsum huHmmo>HnD ouaum namHnon .HH oHnae 114 mH.m HH.N mH.~ mm.H .wmaHo ou mCHom co»0nco mHHamonom so» .HN mm.H Hm.H mm.H mm.H .cmnHHuso mHouasmooa ma3 ommsoo onu Ho COHuoomHa one .oN .manam om.H Hm.H mm.H Hm.H muoc xmam mom moas mcoHuaunmmomm mmaHo a.mouosmumnH one .mH mv.H mm.H mm.H oe.H .cmNHnammo HHo3 maz mmmsoo one .mH .mmnnaE UHuaEmumhm a cH Hm.H mm.H em.H mm.H mummonoo mmmsoo on» muaHmm ou ammammma mouosmumnH one .eH .uHsoHHHHo oou mmnHaaom ooanmma ve.m me.m ve.m ~m.m onm nH monou mo mmamo>oo on» ansOH mHHamocmm sow .mH IbmH «mmH mmmH memH mnamz EmuH A.unoov .mm mHnae 115 .oommame mHmcomum mHasmo o>Hm cna momma mHmnomum mHasmm mco mmonz oHaom no oonnam wIH mEouH¢ .oo>Ho>cH ocommo>o mom mmoUOSm a Emma mHnm manaE CH m: mHon HHH3 noHn3 Hmo mHm manmoocoo mCOHumommsm mo munoEEoo monmo mna onae omaon .m .ommsoo mna.mom mcsmm on so» mua>HuoE noan mmanu m mo m moonm omoom onu mo xoan on» no xnam omaon .m nonum .moEHumEOmum .moequ .mcHno>o wacmmsne wm wvm wmm mmH mam me nonmom mHon a mnHanouua nH commomounH on aHso3 H .e m N H m N H .couonEoo ecaomHa o>an H ans on» 3oH>om om moon mm.m ee.m ooHsoonom HE canu omoe momnmo manmamH onu poms H .m .Mmoz man» mow mHaHmmuaE on» annHm om moon wN.~ mm.H odepmnom ME can» omOE mounou manmamH on» poms H .m .moamm >5 o>ommEH m~.m mm.m on ammumm m mmmu 0» mmnm mammn mo mmam on» mxmm m .4 .nomz vm.m ee.m noao mounou manmaoH on» om mnHom acnno HHH3 H Hoom H .m .onaummooc: om mm.m mm.m mHsonch mHaHmouaE meaqm onu onsom mos o>an H mam 0m .N mo.~ mo.m .aa mom mH ommsoo mHnu ma3 on» oxHH HHHaom H .H memelllwbmH swam mnamz «.memH ana wemH CH Emma on» no nom3 amHnu onu oomouchHeaa .mnaoE EouH cna mEouH soHuasHa>m Hmo oonoHom HHom mmmHm .HHH oHnae 116 .oommamHa mHmComum mHaCmm o>HH aCa momma >HmComum mHaCmm oCo mmmn3 oHaom a C0 ooxCam mIH mEouH« .ummnm omoom on» no noan on» CO CH moona soCn ms moH .mCHnuoEom onHHmHa Ho oxHH Com HH .HH .ummu umuHm on» can» mmmH Am. .ummp ummHm map on mmsam Ame .nmmm umuHm on» mom can» once Ame wmm wem wmm wee wmm me "mH umouom a mow mCHmaCum aComm H oEHu Ho uCCOEa one .OH m m H m m H .oaamm he o>ommEH mm.H mH.H ou umomom a mnau om oHna mCHon Ho aocH onu mMHH H .m .ommsoo mHnu CH poms moCmHC mo.~ me.H unomm on» nqu unmsau mommsoo monuo mom on onHH oHCos H .m .momsuooH pCa mmenqm em.m em.m. mnu Coosuon HaHmouaE Ho COHuaoHHch nose oou mH ommne .e No.m e~.m .momsuomH on» om mCHom onHH H .m mm.~ me.~ .momCmo mCHCmaoH on» on mCHom onHH H .m .Emou onu mo mCHCCHmon wo.m mv.m on» ma Can» 30C me mom monao oma mHaHmouaE menqm one .w .HCHmHon oma oCHHuCo mmsuooH m~.m mo.~ oCa meaqm noao Ho mCHCCHmon on» ma aoumHH mo>Huoonno one .m .omamm>a HCHom ooamm euHmmo>HCC HHa uComomm oo.~ H~.~ as Can» moann mH ommsoo mHnu mom oaamm oomamHOHuCa a: .N «e.H em.H .mmmsoo mHnu CH Haoa maomm a mCHCmaoH Ea H onHH Hoom H .H .MPMHIIINPMH mCamz EouH ..mpmm acm «HmH CH 2mm» an» no moms nume onu comoumHCHfiaa .mCaoE EouH cCa mEouH ConaCHa>o Hmo oOCoHom HHom UCooom .>H oHnae 117 .mommame HHmComum mHaCmo o>HH CCa momma mHmComum mHaCmm mCo omon3 amnCam mHIH mEoHH« .CoHuoamouCH om.~ mm.~ wuHsoaH mCooCum mOH mCHCCumommo omoE mmcH>omm ommCoo mHne .HH mm.H mH.~ .mHaHCmums meaqm on“ nuHs amumummuCH HHa; oma; mousuomH one .MH .mEHu .muCocsmm on» no mo: HCoHoHHmo mo.~ Ho.~ omoE CH muHCmom ommCoo mHnu CH Coos ma CoHuosmumCH HHmm .NH .umomouCH Ho mH.~ vo.~ oHoHH we on oomo>oo mOHmom mCHuaHom CH huHCOHHHHo 0C can H .HH .Ammonae m HHa mom menHm mCo om ammommo «o.H am.~ mac ConC CC Com amummmum mums mmsaqm map was as» amme H .OH .oE mHmn 0H mHna m~.m mm.~ UCa coEmOHCH HHo3 aomaomma moms» naH onu mHon cocmoC H Cmn3 .m mH.m em.m .momCoo mCHCmamH on» CH xmoz naH HaCHoa mmoe on aHConm mmone .m .mouCoo mCHCmamH on» Ho Eammomm HHamo>o onu Eomm couoamumc Ho.m vm.m mouCoo mCHCmamH on» CH moon oHCponom a mCH>an uanu HHoH H .e .Hmo mHHom nuH3 we.H mm.m amuaHoowma mH onz mCooEom on CHConm mean on» Co oOHo> one .w mm.m em.m .umam oou omoz woman onm Co mmonaomm one .m .HaHmouas mo.~ Ho.~ mnu Ho mmooH30Cn ME Ho ouaEHumo ooom a mmo3 mEaxo one .v .Aomao HaCmC on» CH ma co>moo Coon HHa can mEaxo HH Canmv omoa woman on me comsao ocamm maHCoHumam a CH HHCmom eo.~ vo.~ aHCo3 mmmoom mmmu mo Hauou CHaummo a man» moCa>oa CH mCHsoCM .m we.H om.H .mEaxo onu Co mmmoom >8 ©m>ommEH mummu HHom m>oHHon H .m .mmmCOH pomonfioamm on HHH3 ommCoo vo.m vH.~ mHnu CH amCmaoH H CoHuaEmomCH onu wommsoo monuo on oomamaou .H memelllwwMH oCamz EouH HMGHM 03D. UUHOUWHCHEUM mCaoE EouH ona ..memm can «Ham :H Cum» on» no xmm3 mEouH COHHaCHa>o Hmo oOCoHom HHom HaCHm .> oHnae 118 MH mH momsao mm 5 HH mouHaE OHCammo HHom m e nHBOmm uCaHm CCa huHCHHam .ConCou omspmHoz HHom m OH mmHnmCOHuaHom mHn UCa ooamm omom uanoB vH NH omsuosmum aCa omsuxoe HHom NH NH HHom mo mumooCoo mhmH VB¢H .AMINIHV wHw3 “mmfl 0:“ GXflH H mm9¢qm m GSB ON .m no .N .m mCHumoHacH momCommom Ho omamCoomom .OHIm Ame .elm nwv .mnm Ame .muH Ame .o Ame .mmeaqm «0 “when: mCHsoHHom mo.N mH.N mnm oEHu oCooom a moH mo>o uCo3 mo cosoH>om H .mH .mmson omos mo e Hey .mmCon vim Amy ~mmCon NIH HNV .mmoH mo moon H AHV Nnmo3 noam .mumou HHom aCa .oEoHnomm nmozoaon .munoECmHmma mCHcaom .wenqm on» mCHuon mm.N em.N 3800 CH UComm Com oHc omamo>a onu Co oEHH nose 30m .mH .m Canu omoE Amy .m Avv .q Amy .m ANV .N AHV "on OHnonm Amumouom mH.v mm.m UCav HaCHH onu mCHHCCoo HOC mEaxo Ho monECC one .5H .m 3: .e Amv .m ANV mv.N mm.N _ .N AHV "on UHCO3 ommCoo mHnu mom mquomo one .mH .Amaammomm menqm .oHaom ooCHEmouoc nomm a on mCHcmoooa mmoamm .mumoulom .mummu HHom .mo>Huoonno "ma nosmv ommCoo mHnu CH poms moCmHCnoou vm.H mm.H on» nuHB unmsam mommsoo monmo mom on onHH UHCo3 H .mH memH vemH ll oCaoE EoHH. .n.uCooV .> mHnae 119 NommCoo mHnu mCH>ommEH mOH o>an so» on mCoHumommCm Han3 .mN . NommCoo omonz oso oooom onHmmmo Co oxHH NHHmHooomo so» oHa owns .mN «so» CHon mooHuooHno on» oHa 30m .HN Nmonae msom om couaHom uanu mmenqm mnm CH CoHHaEmOHCH on» usona o>an so» on muCoEEoo Hang .mN . NHHommao a moH HHas om mm em 02 w m>an HanE Com HH Co>o COHmom oomH a can so» oEHu mCa em mm mm» m moHCoo mCHCmamH onu om om om commomomm o>an Com oHCoz .mN .oEHu Ho uCCosa oaam on» mo .mmoH mN em Hasmm w .omoe mComm Co» ens CHamem NmommCoo uHommo m monmo Co vN m mmoH m mComm oEHu onu on HaCmo mo mmoH .omoe mas nook noao mm Hm mmoz w ommCoo mHnm mom mCHmammmm uComm Com oEHu Ho uCCosa one .eN mmEaxo mnu uaona o>an so» on mHCmEEoo uanz .MN umHnu usona mHCoEEoo Nopamm CHaumoo m v 02 w a CHauno om mocmo CH HomoooC muCHom Hauouv comHCm mm mm woe m Iom maB uan3 mommaHo mo mac umH on» mCHzoCn onHH Com cHo .NN mmmnu oo no: so» oma was no .mHnu on so» aHa 3oz 0 m oz w Numouom onu noon so» omonn emu ummHH on» Co mConmoCm em mm mow w oommHE so» mnz mCo CCHH so» UHU .mmommm a noou so» Cons .HN m m moHHoaom Hmom HN mH mmoNHHHumom oCa euHHHumom HHow m e CoHuamouH< no n.uCoov .oN mwmvcmmm a... A.ucoov .> oHnae 120 .oommame mHmComum mHaCmo o>HH oCa momma mHmComum mHaCmo mCo omon3 oHaom an oonCam mEoHH« .mOmH>momCm Ho.e oo.v NE en oE nHHz pomeUch mHHOm msona comCHCoo Coumo mas H .m .moEECm oHnu ommomCCooCo H uanu mCOHuaCmHm nonlmnunCo onm om Hmo ooCmHom ov.N mw.N HHom CH coCmaoH H HaHmomaE on» mCHuaHom CH HHHCOHHHHC can H .N .Hmo oOCmHom HHom can mCH>an omOHon mm.H om.H Can» 30C oOCoHom HHom Ho aoma onu CH mCouomEoo omoE HooH H .H emH me mCaoS EouH . «.vemH oCa memH CH Emma HHaH Ho noo3 HomHH on» oomoumHCHan mCaoE EomH UCa mEouH CoHuaCHa>o mCHCHamu mCoEooaHmluoom .H> oHnae 121 .Hmmm u m.uCocCHm mCHmC Hm>oH wm onu ma mmommuao o.o:m.N Eomm mComoHHHc >HuCa0HHHCmHma m.m e.m H.m N.m m.w *H.m m.m CHaw o.oN m.mH o.HN m.eH «¢.HN «N.HN N.oN mmouumom a.mH o.vH o.MH m.NH o.MH m.VH a.mH umouomm .Con Zuq .ouoe o.o-m.m o.m-m.m 0.4 osouo Coxm mmoflaz monomouao mCoEo>oHnoa Hmo Hauoe .msomm HauCoEHmono onu moH mCaoE umouumom pCa umouomm .HH> oHnae Table VIII. 122 Final exam achievement levels. Group Achievement level 86% 84% 78% less than 77% Percent Control 20 32 8 40 Experimental 34 29 12 25 123 .umou m m.uCo©Cnm mCHmC Ho>oH mm onu ma Hasuoa EomH uComommHo mHmCaOHHHCmHma mHH eHH NHH coHOHpomm HNH ONH «NNH Hasmon muCHom Hauoe Cam: mo.m mm.N om.N amuoHaomm mH.m mm.N «mH.m Hasuon omamo>< uCHom ocamw Cam: mmCuHConon mmommCZIomaomoCaH mmammmmse mmOflaz uCoEo>oHnon Hmo .mmonae oomnm on» mow quEo>oHnoa aouoHaoCC aCo Hasuoa .xH oHnae NI. “orlujou‘wom I ll 04