Skip to main content
Log in

A survey of college students' exposure to and preference for eight instructional options

  • Published:
Research in Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study investigated student exposure to and preference for eight instruction procedures used to teach college courses. The options were programmed instruction, computer-assisted instruction, modular instruction, contingency management and contingency contracting, personalized system of instruction or Keller Plan, individually prescribed instruction, large lecture and lecture-discussion. Six hundred students from six different colleges and universities were surveyed on a number of items related to their exposure and preferences of the eight instructional options. Results of the study indicated exposure to various options were significantly different among schools. There were also large differences among the various major areas of concentration. Student preferences were found to be influenced by such factors as area of concentration, grade point average, strength of learning modalities, class standing, and course content. The data also indicated that perhaps student “choice” of instructional method may be as effective as a method of individualizing instruction as trying to develop one all inclusive strategy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bejar, Isaac, I. A survey of selected administrative practices supporting student evaluation of instruction programs. Research in Higher Education, 1976, 3, 77–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, W. K. Student choice of means and ends. Journal of the National Society for Programmed Instruction, 1971, 10, 12–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geis, G. L., and Rogers, J. Student choice. Journal of the National Society for Programmed Instruction, 1971, 10, 4–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldschmid, B., and Goldschmid, M. L. Individualizing instruction in higher education: A review. Higher Education, 1973, 3, 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn, B. J. Personality, choice, and learning outcomes. Journal of the National Society for Programmed Instruction, 1971, 10, 10–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koren, C. S. Student-oriented curricula; the graduate and professional school reaction. Research in Higher Education, 1973 1, 215–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pascal, C. E. Offering course option: Personality, option preference and course outcomes. Journal of the National Society for Programmed Instruction, 1971, 10, 8–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, J. Instructional options in a psychology course. Journal of the National Society for Programmed Instruction, 1971, 10, 6–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheldon, J., Sherman, J., Wolf, M., Menken, B., and Menken, N. “Hello teacher. ...” In J. A. Johnson (Ed.), Proceedings of the Second National Conference on Research and Technology in College and University Teaching. Gainsville, Florida: University of Florida, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  • Starks, D. D. The design of two courses incorporating student choice. Journal of the National Society for Programmed Instruction, 1971, 10, 14–15.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Barrall, M.E., Hill, D.A. A survey of college students' exposure to and preference for eight instructional options. Res High Educ 7, 315–327 (1977). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00991908

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00991908

Key words

Navigation