Abstract
135 high schoolSs were presented with one of three treatment programs: rule (R); rule, then discovery (RD); and discovery, then rule (DR). AllSs were tested on the training rules and on three transfer problems. No significant differences were found on the transfer problems, but the R and RDSs learned the training rules better than the DRSs (p<0.01). It was proposed that failure on the discovery task may have had an inhibiting effect on subsequent learning on the R program.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Bibliography
Ausubel, D. P.: 1963,The psychology of meaningful verbal learning, Green and Stratton, New York.
Gagne, R. M. and Brown, L. T.: 1961, ‘Some factors in the programming of conceptual learning’,Journal of Experimental Psychology 62, 313–321.
Helson, H.: 1964,Adaptation-level theory, Harper & Row, New York.
Roughead, W. R. and Scandura, J. M.: 1968, ‘”What is learned” in mathematical discovery’,Journal of Educational Psychology (in press).
Scandura, J. M.: 1964, ‘An analysis of exposition and discovery modes of problem solving instruction’,Journal of Experimental Education 33, 149–159.
References
In the experiment by Roughead and Scandura (1968), groups RD and R performed at essentially the same level. Hence in this experiment, groups RD and R were combined and contrasted with group DR.
In contrast with the study by Roughead and Scandura (1968), theSs in this study were not given solution hints on the transfer problems. Thus, the main effect of the D program in the earlier study could have been to teach theSs to use hints more effectively.
A closer look at the data suggested that many of theSs in groups DR, RD, and R simply copied the correct answers which were given on the next page (some of theSs said they could ‘see through’ the pages). Thus, well over three-fourths of theSs (an average of 84%, 83%, and 82% on problems 1,2,, and 3, respectively) wrote the correct summation formula on at least two of the three separate occasions where it was requested in the R program. Of thesesame Ss, less than half (an average of 47%, 42%, and 41% on problems 1, 2, and 3, respectively) were able to give the identical formulas on the embedded test. In contrast to the collegeSs in the earlier study who had an overall error rate between 5–11%, theSs in this study clearly did not learn the material.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
The authors wish to thank the students who participated in the experiment, the members of a teachers' research seminar supported by a government grant to the Montgomery County Instructional Center, and particularly to Mr. Philip Beck and Mr. Philip O'Neil without whose help and cooperation the study could not have been conducted.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Scandura, J.M., Barksdale, J., Durnin, J.H. et al. An unexpected relationship between failure and subsequent mathematics learning. Educ Stud Math 1, 247–251 (1969). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00558310
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00558310